AGENDA Education Oversight Committee Monday, June 10, 2019 1:00 PM Room 433, Blatt Building
I. Welcome and Introductions ...... Ms. Ellen Weaver
II. Approval of Minutes of April 8, 2019 ...... Ms. Ellen Weaver
III. Key Constituency Frank Rainwater, Executive Director, SC Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office Update on Funding Model for Public Education
IV. Special Reports Results of the 2018 Administration of Kindergarten ...... Bunnie Ward & Readiness Assessment Christine DiStefano, USC (To Be Distributed at the Meeting)
Ellen Weaver Evaluation of Professional Development and ...... Celia Gomez, CHAIR
Teacher Credentials of Full-Day 4K Program RAND Corporation Bob Couch VICE CHAIR Report on Palmetto Digital Literacy Program and ...... Dr. Lee D’Andrea Terry Alexander Update on eLearning Pilot Program April Allen Raye Felder Barbara B. Hairfield V. Subcommittee Reports: Greg Hembree
Academic Standards and Assessments and ...... Mr. Neil Robinson Kevin L. Johnson
Public Awareness ...... Mrs. Barbara Hairfield John W. Matthews, Jr.
Action Item: Report on ECENC Program Henry McMaster Action Item: Results of the 2018 Parent Survey Brian Newsome Information Item: 2019-20 Communications Plan Neil C. Robinson, Jr. EIA & Improvement Mechanisms ...... Dr. Bob Couch Molly Spearman Action Item: Educational Performance of Military-Connected Students John C. Stockwell Action Item: Report on South Carolina Teacher Loan Program, 2017-18 Patti J. Tate
Information Item: Update on Fiscal Year 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill Scott Turner
Information Item: Aid to Districts Technology Report
Melanie D. Barton V. Adjournment EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Minutes of the Meeting April 8, 2019
Members Present: Ellen Weaver, Chair; Dr. Bob Couch, Vice-Chair; April Allen; Rep. Terry Alexander; Rep. Raye Felder; Senator Kevin Johnson; Senator John Matthews; Brian Newsome; Patti Tate; and Dr. Scott Turner.
Members Participating via Conference Call: Barbara Hairfield
EOC Staff Present: Dr. Kevin Andrews; Melanie Barton; Dr. Rainey Knight; Bunnie Ward; and Dana Yow.
Ms. Weaver welcomed members and guests to the meeting. Ms. Weaver acknowledged that Rep. Loftis, now Senator Loftis, is no longer a member of the Committee. She expressed appreciation for his service on the Committee and for his passion for computer science education and for his grandchildren.
Ms. Weaver then explained to the Committee that Frank Rainwater, Executive Director of the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (RFA) Office, was invited to the meeting to explain the work that he is doing on the public education funding model. However, due to a meeting of the Board of Economic Advisors this afternoon, he could not attend today but will plan on presenting in the future. Ms. Weaver noted that staff has provided a copy of the letter that Governor McMaster, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House sent to Mr. Rainwater asking for a review and recommendations of public education funding. The EOC staff is providing support to RFA.
The minutes of the February 11, 2019 meeting were approved as distributed.
The Committee then received subcommittee reports:
Academic Standards and Assessments Subcommittee
Due to an illness, Ms. Hairfield participated via a conference call. She asked that EOC staff provide a summary of the three action items. K-Grade 3 Social Studies Standards - Dr. Knight noted that the Academic Standards and Assessments (ASA) Subcommittee met on March 18, 2019 and recommended that the Committee approve the revised K-3 social studies standards. As noted by Dr. Knight, on December 10, 2018, the EOC approved the social studies standards for grades 4-12 and requested revisions to grades K-3. Following the December meeting, the SC Department of Education reviewed and revised the K-3 social studies standards. Dr. Knight explained the revisions made to the K-3 social studies standards included improvements to the alignment and consistency of the standards in grades K-2. In grades K-2,
1
the standards progress from exploring social studies from the perspective of the classroom and expands to South Carolina and then through the United States. For grade 3, the Department and the EOC staff agreed a logical progression from the classroom, to South Carolina and United States, would be exposure to the world through a world geography course of studies. Because the newly approved 4th and 5th grade standards contained South Carolina history content previously taught in grade 3, the determination was made to retain the original focus of world geography in grade 3 and to remove references specifically to South Carolina. Dr. Jerry Mitchell, a USC geography professor, who served as a member of the EOC review team and the Department writing team, worked with the Department to review and make recommendations to the grade 3 world geography standards. The world geography grade 3 standards explore the world from a theme-based approach.
In addition to approving the new K-3 social studies standards, the ASA Subcommittee recommends that a letter be sent to the General Assembly providing the rationale for the changes to grade 3 social studies standards and noting that South Carolina history will now be taught in grades 4 and 5. The ASA subcommittee also concurred that, in addition to the standards, there is a need to create a document that shows the progression of civic skills and dispositions from kindergarten to grade 12 to operationalize civic readiness.
Rep. Felder asked for clarification about when South Carolina history would be taught. Ms. Hairfield noted that, while the standards embed history, geography, economics and civics, identifying the four social studies strands would assist teachers.
There being no further questions, the Committee approved unanimously the revised K-3 social studies standards.
Industry Certifications for Accountability - Ms. Yow then explained that the ASA Subcommittee is recommending that the Committee approve an additional 80 industry credentials for school years 2018-19 and 2019-20 for purposes of defining a student “career ready” as being a student who is a Career and Technical Education (CTE) completer and earns a national or state industry credential. In the current accountability system, high schools receive a rating for College/Career Readiness, which is the percentage of high school graduates who are college or career ready. One-fourth or 25 points of each high school’s overall rating is based on this indicator. While there are several metrics that can define “career ready,” a student may be deemed “career ready” if the high school graduate is a CTE completer and, where applicable, has earned a national or state industry credential as determined by the business community. The 80 new industry certifications/credentials would join the 164 the EOC has already approved for use in the accountability system.
Ms. Yow explained the data included in the meeting packet. First, there was a list of certifications/credentials, organized by Career Cluster, which were submitted by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) after vetting by local, regional and state organizations, including the South Carolina Department of Commerce, the South Carolina Department of Employment and Workforce, and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce. The items listed as “Keep” were already approved for accountability and items noted as “Add” are recommended for approval by the full Committee. There was also an analysis of the certifications/credentials earned by students in 2017-18, analyzed by Career Cluster. Overall, students earned a total of
2
7,275 certifications or credentials in school year 2017-18. Thirty-seven percent of the credentials were earned in the Health Science Cluster, with over half of those credentials coming from Basic Life Support and Certified Nurse Aide. Also, 1,038 of the certifications were OSHA 10 General Industry and 171 were Microburst EmployABILITY Soft Skills Certification, two general credentials the Subcommittee recommends be worked into an overall stackable credential system. The analysis also showed that of the 164 certifications/credentials already approved for use in the accountability system, only 64 - or 39% -had at least one student earning it. The SCDE has stated they are analyzing the data and will be able to determine what credentials are not being used with historical data from two consecutive years. This process will allow them to delete with justification. Also, of note – no certifications were earned in the Marketing or Finance Career Clusters for School Year 2017-18. The SCDE has proposed five (5) certifications be added in Finance; seven (7) for Marketing. Ms. Yow explained that the EOC staff has been working with Angel Malone, Director of Career and Technology Education Office at SCDE, during this process. Ms. Malone, who could not attend the meeting, participated via a conference call. She noted that the new federal Perkins law requires states to connect local regional workforce needs and stackable credentials to create access especially in rural schools and districts. Ms. Malone explained that the agency is working with the SC Department of Employment and Workforce to align industry credential opportunities with the demands of the workforce regionally to create a primary and stackable credentials for the 2020-2021 School Year. Dr. Couch noted that in recent conversations with business and industry in Anderson that employers want students who have a Silver or better on the WIN career readiness assessment, who have an OSHA certification, and who have earned a soft skills credential. Rep. Alexander stated that the state needs to evaluate the clusters and possibly redefine the clusters. Dr. Couch agreed with Rep. Alexander and noted in his new career center, the 16 clusters are grouped under 5 broad areas. Dr. Turner asked for clarification about how the industry certifications will impact accountability. Sen. Matthews asked for clarification about the Ready to Work (R2W) Career Readiness Assessment and certificates that students can earn.
Dr. Turner asked if there are certifications that should be added. Dr. Couch and Ms. Allen noted that the list needs to be amended periodically especially with dramatic changes in the workforce. Ms. Allen noted that a student who earns a credential is highly valued by industry because a certification means that the student has specific skills substantiated by an independent review. There being no further discussion, the Committee voted unanimously to approve the additional certifications and to work with the Department of Education on designing a system of primary and stackable credentials in the future.
Palmetto Gold and Silver Criteria - Dr. Knight explained that state law requires the EOC, working with the State Board of Education, to establish the criteria for the Palmetto Gold and Silver Awards Program. State law requires awards be established for schools: (1) attaining high levels of academic achievement; (2) attaining high rates of growth; and (3) making substantial progress in closing the achievement gap between disaggregated groups.
3
The Subcommittee recommended that the Committee approve criteria for elementary, middle, and high schools that attain high levels of academic achievement and high rates of growth. These criteria, as approved, will be forwarded to the State Board of Education for its consideration. The Subcommittee further recommended additional analysis of data is needed before schools can be recognized for making substantial progress in closing the achievement gap between disaggregated groups.
There being no questions, the Committee approved the Palmetto Gold and Silver Awards Program Criteria.
EIA and Improvement Mechanisms Subcommittee Update on Fiscal Year 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill - Dr. Couch provided a summary of the 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill as adopted by the House on March 13 as it relates to education and to the EOC’s budget recommendations. In summary, the House recommended the following:
• Consolidation of the general fund line item appropriations for the Education Finance Act (EFA) and EFA employer contributions into a new line item, State Aid to Classrooms. To the new General Fund line item, State Aid to Classrooms, the House added $159,248,000 to raise the starting salary on the State Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule from $32,000 to $35,000, as recommended by the EOC, and to increase salary cells beyond five years of experience by 4 percent. These funds pay for the full cost of increasing the salary schedules. The combined line item appropriation reflects an average per pupil of $3,846 per pupil. Furthermore, the funds are allocated based on the manner in which the funds were allocated in the current fiscal year. There was no increase to the base student cost or increased funding for additional weighted pupil units.
• For the first time, the House published in the budget the new State Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule and the percentage increases for each cell in the salary schedule. The budget projects an average teacher salary of $52,830 in Fiscal Year 2019-20. The actual SC average teacher salary in 2017-18 was $50,050.
• The House also funded: o $50 million in excess debt service for School Districts Capital Improvement monies for funding school facility upgrades; o $20 million in lottery revenues for instructional materials; and o A minimum of $19.4 million in lottery revenues for school bus lease/purchases.
Of note, the House did not annualize any of the appropriation for industry certifications as recommended by the EOC. The House also did not provide funding for computer science professional development. Dr. Couch called upon Ms. Barton to provide an update on the budget and recommended by the Senate Finance Committee, which completed its work in the prior week. Ms. Barton noted that the three key differences in two versions of the bill are as follows: The Senate Finance Committee: (1) increased funding of the Education Finance Act (EFA) by $15 million; (2) reduced funding of
4 charter schools by $2.1 million due to revisions in student enrollment; and (3) funded the same increase in teacher salaries as the House but also funded the special schools. On provisos, both the House and the Senate Finance Committee adopted the EOC’s recommendations to include Cambridge International exams as part of the state’s reimbursement policy for college placement tests. And, both supported increasing the maximum annual and maximum lifetime loan amounts under the SC Teacher Loan Program.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.
5
Education Funding Model
Status Report – May 9, 2019
Presented to
The Honorable Henry McMaster, Governor
The Honorable Harvey Peeler, President of the Senate
The Honorable Jay Lucas, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Acknowledgements
While this document was developed and is being presented by the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office (RFA), it contains and reflects the efforts and contributions of many other individuals who are involved with public education, its policies, and funding on a daily basis. RFA staff spent many hours researching and analyzing the data and preparing this report, but this analysis would not have been possible without the support and assistance of those individuals who provided data and expert insight. Their efforts and cooperation are very much appreciated. Of all the individuals who contributed to this report, a special note of appreciation is extended to Ms. Nancy Williams, Chief Finance Officer, at the South Carolina Department of Education.
This report and accompanying material may be found at http://rfa.sc.gov/econ/educ/model
Any and all comments from interested parties are welcomed and may be emailed to [email protected]. While this report attempts to identify data and policy issues for follow-up, any comments to improve or guide this analysis are especially welcomed. Please note that all correspondence is considered public information.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE –MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 1
Budgeting Worksheet for Subcategories – District Services ...... 45 Contents Budgeting Issues (Summary)...... 48 Acknowledgements ...... 1 III. Accountability, Flexibility, & Transparency ...... 50 Contents ...... 2 Example - Reporting Options for Fiscal Accountability ...... 51 Executive Summary ...... 3 Education Oversight Committee Recommended Metrics for Student Performance and Status of Education Funding Model– May 9, 2019 ...... 5 Accountability ...... 52 Purpose ...... 7 Accountability, Flexibility, & Transparency (Summary) ...... 53 Key Factors in Developing Model ...... 8 IV. Competitive Workforce of Teachers ...... 55 Key Factors in Developing Model (Continued) ...... 12 Competitive Workforce of Teachers (Summary) ...... 59 Limitations and Items Not Addressed in This Report ...... 13 V. Consolidation of Districts ...... 67 List of Abbreviations and Terms ...... 13 Consolidation of Districts – Summary ...... 70 List of Items Specifically Requested by Topic ...... 14 VI. Long-Term Focus ...... 72 I. Current Status of Education Funding ...... 16 Long-Term Focus (Summary) ...... 74 Total Expenditures and Revenues – RFA Expenditure Categories ...... 18 Next Steps - Timeline ...... 75 Instruction Expenditures Categories ...... 20 APPENDIX ...... 77 Teachers and Instructional Staff – Regular 81 School Districts ...... 21 Additional Charts and Data ...... 77 Facilities and Transportation Expenditures Categories ...... 22 List of Key Policy Issues ...... 94 District Services Expenditures Categories ...... 23 FY 2016-17 Expenditures by District for the Basic Program ...... 25 Current Status of Education Funding (Summary) ...... 29 II. Budgeting Issues ...... 31 Model Part A. - Estimated Cost of a Teacher ...... 33 Model Part B. - Estimated Total Cost Based on Number of Teachers Needed to Provide Services ...... 35 Budgeting Worksheet for Subcategories – Instruction ...... 40 Budgeting Worksheet for Subcategories – Facilities and Transportation ...... 44
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE –MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 2
Executive Summary
Introduction Expenditure Baseline
This report describes the approach, presents known data, and outlines the A baseline for this model was developed using actual expenditures for FY next steps to enable Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (RFA) to complete the 2016-17 reported by the 81 local school districts to the State Department of education funding model and accompanying goals. The premise of this Education. The model attempts to define a basic educational program model is that students drive the need for services, and different students may common to each local public school district (Basic Program). Expenditures require different services. This model attempts to 1) identify those services for this Basic Program were calculated by excluding accounting transfers, and 2) estimate the cost of providing those services. debt service, federal funding, non-statewide programs, and local salary programs from the districts’ total expenditures. Spending in FY 2016-17 for The key factors affecting this model are: the Basic Program was determined to be $6,226.7 million or $8,650 per • number of students student (funded by state and local dollars). • number of teachers and student-teacher ratios • teacher salaries This model further sub-divides expenditures into three primary categories: • Instruction – averaging $6,060 per pupil • Facilities and Transportation – averaging $1,531 per pupil This approach differs from the current practice of budgeting, which is based • District Services – averaging $692 per pupil on formulas, accounting codes, and specific programs. As currently structured, the Base Student Cost only covers a portion of the total cost of Others services, averaging $367 per pupil, make up the remaining education, and this model attempts to quantify the full cost in a single expenditures. This category includes pupil service activities such as athletics number. that are outside the model.
Equity Charts showing how each district compares to the statewide average expenditures for the Basic Program are included in the report.
The report highlights the importance of equity and how state appropriations and the vast differences in taxable property value among the local school districts impact each district’s ability to fund education services.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE –MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 3
Model – Budgeting Methodology Policy Decisions and Data
The budget model attempts to explain and define the costs for the three The two major tasks stemming from this report involve data and policy primary expenditure categories in the Basic Program by estimating the cost decisions. for various sub-categories within each group. For example, Instruction is divided into Instruction, Instructional Support, Health and Social Services, • The report provides a significant amount of analysis, but further work Vocational and Career, Technology, and School Administration. The cost of is needed to verify the underlying data and identify and collect instruction in the model is based on the cost of a teacher and the number of additional or missing data. teachers required to serve students. Data are presented to show the number of teachers and the various student-teacher ratios by district. Notably, • The report also identifies a number of policy decisions that would student-teacher ratios are not “class-size,” and more data are needed to impact the model and cost estimates. Feedback from stakeholders is examine this difference. critical on these key issues so the model can incorporate these assumptions or goals. This feedback is also expected to set priorities As data are verified, the model will show the amount of state and local for funding. funding that is supporting the expenditures for the Basic Program and how changes to the current system may affect those figures. Special Note
Teacher Salaries This report presents an extensive amount of data and attempts to organize it in a manner so key cost drivers and differences in spending can be better Identifying or targeting a competitive salary for teachers requires more understood. discussion as the analysis involves a number of variables. This report identifies and presents data on these variables, which include the market demand for a particular job, government vs private sector, and number of days worked.
The report further examines differences in teacher salaries based upon the state minimum teacher salary scale by education level to various other annual salaries.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 4
Status of Education Funding Model– May 9, 2019
Approach
• The basic theme for this model is that students drive the need for services and resources. Some students require only basic services, while others require additional or enhanced services and resources. For the purposes of this report, these resources can be categorized into three main areas:
Instruction - Cost for direct and indirect instruction and resources in the classroom setting
Facilities and Transportation - Cost for the school site to house, transport, feed, and secure students
District Services - Cost for district-wide services to support the schools in a district
• This model attempts to identify, categorize, and estimate the cost of these various levels of services and resources that are being provided currently, which are later described in this report as the Basic Program.
• The report presents additional data regarding the funding resources at the state and local level and how allocations affect equity.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE –MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 5
Status of Model
• Created a baseline or reference point using actual expenditures and revenues for FY 2016-17 and grouped expenditures into major categories.
• Created a model to identify and estimate the resources that aligned to the expenditures.
• Experienced data issues and need more time to find appropriate data, resolve differences in classification, and verify reporting.
• Identified key policy issues that would affect the model and need feedback from stakeholders.
Next Steps
• Review initial report with key stakeholders.
• Obtain, verify, and finalize data.
• Receive feedback on key policy issues affecting model.
• Provide update on September 12, 2019.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 6
Purpose
• Develop a new model to guide state appropriations and local expenditures for education
Currently, state appropriations for education are identified by separate accounting lines, and the budget process for those items does not adequately explain the underlying factors driving the total cost of education services and the variance among the local school districts. Also, funding for similar programs is spread over different line items, and these accounting items do not provide a comprehensive measure of resources disbursed or expended.
In this proposed model, the general approach is to identify and quantify the demand for services that students need and estimate the cost for providing those services. As part of this effort, a baseline on these services and costs is established based on actual FY 2016- 17 appropriations and expenditures. A substantial amount of time and effort has been devoted to gathering and organizing the relevant data in order to categorize and measure those services and estimate costs at the state and district level, and more work will be required to review this data and consider adjustments to the model. At this stage of the process, however, the primary goal of this report is to present a framework to all stakeholders and allow time for interested parties to understand the approach and review the data, assumptions, and the basic foundation for estimating costs.
Furthermore, the continued development of this model is dependent upon significant policy decisions, which are best addressed by the key stakeholders.
• Improve efficiency, transparency, accountability, and affordability
At each possible point in designing the methods for estimating, budgeting, disbursing, and reporting, efforts have been made to include information to help improve the efficiency, transparency, accountability, and affordability of a new model. These factors are outlined later in this report, but are largely dependent upon input from stakeholders.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 7
Key Factors in Developing Model
The request for this report outlined three key factors to consider in developing a model for education funding: equity, 21st century economy & education, and flexibility & accountability.
Equity • “ensure more equitable distribution”
Equity in funding and the impact upon students and taxpayers is an important consideration in this model. School funding is predominately based on state appropriations and local tax base. While differences in state appropriations may be more noticeable, the disparities among the local property tax base are less obvious but more significant. Several charts are included to help identify the degree of disparity in the local property tax base which show:
o The range in total assessed property value from the school districts with the lowest tax to the highest is over 1,300 percent. o The value of one mil ranges from $18,000 to $2,600,000 between the lowest and highest values. o Since 1974, 16 percent of the total tax base has shifted from the lowest 75 percent of districts to the highest 25 percent of districts. The wealthiest twenty local districts account for 76 percent of the total tax base statewide.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 8
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT- TAX YEAR 2017 Excluding Owner Occupied $2,750
$2,500
$2,250
$2,000
$1,750
$1,500
$1,250 (Millionsof Dollars) $1,000
$750
$500
$250
$0 Lee 1 York 1 York 4 York 2 York 3 Aiken 1 Horry 1 Dillon 4 Dillon 3 Union 1 Union Jasper 1 Saluda 1 Sumter 1 Pickens 1 Chester 1 Oconee 1 Fairfield 1 Calhoun 1 Colleton 1 Marion 10 Kershaw 1 Richland 2 Richland 1 Florence 4 Florence 3 Florence 2 Florence 5 Florence 1 Berkeley 1 Beaufort 1 Bamberg 2 Bamberg 1 Laurens 55 Laurens 56 Edgefield 1 Allendale 1 Hampton 1 Hampton Hampton 2 Hampton Marlboro 1 Cherokee 1 Lancaster 1 Anderson 4 Anderson 1 Anderson Anderson 3 Anderson Anderson 2 Anderson Anderson 5 Anderson Lexington 3 Lexington 4 Lexington 2 Lexington 5 Lexington 1 Newberry 1 Barnwell 45 Barnwell 29 Barnwell 19 Greenville 1 Clarendon 2 Clarendon 1 Clarendon 3 Abbeville 60 Darlington 1 Charleston 1 Dorchester 4 Dorchester 2 McCormick 1 Orangeburg 5 Orangeburg 4 Orangeburg 3 Chesterfield 1 Spartanburg 2 Spartanburg 4 Spartanburg 3 Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 7 Spartanburg 6 Spartanburg 5 Georgetown 1 Greenwood 51 Greenwood 52 Greenwood 50 Williamsburg 1
Note: Includes fee-in-lieu property Data Source: S.C. Department of Revenue Index of Taxpaying Ability RFA/245
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 9
ESTIMATED VALUE OF A MILL BY SCHOOL DISTRICT - TAX YEAR 2017 Excluding Owner Occupied $2.75
$2.50
$2.25
$2.00
) $1.75
$1.50
$1.25 (Millionsof Dollars $1.00
$0.75
$0.50
$0.25
$0.00 Lee Aiken Horry Union York 1 York 4 York 2 York 3 Jasper Saluda Marion Sumter Pickens Dillon 3 Dillon 4 Chester Oconee Fairfield Calhoun Colleton Kershaw Berkeley Beaufort Abbeville Edgefield Allendale Marlboro Cherokee Lancaster Newberry Greenville Richland 2 Richland 1 Florence 1 Florence 2 Florence 4 Florence 5 Florence 3 Darlington Charleston Bamberg 2 Bamberg 1 Laurens 55 Laurens 56 Hampton 2 Hampton Hampton 1 Hampton McCormick Anderson 4 Anderson Anderson 1 Anderson Anderson 5 Anderson Anderson 3 Anderson Anderson 2 Anderson Lexington 2 Lexington 5 Lexington 1 Lexington 4 Lexington 3 Barnwell 29 Barnwell 45 Barnwell 19 Chesterfield Clarendon 3 Clarendon 1 Clarendon 2 Georgetown Dorchester 2 Dorchester 4 Williamsburg Orangeburg 3 Orangeburg 4 Orangeburg 5 Spartanburg 4 Spartanburg 3 Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 2 Spartanburg 7 Spartanburg 6 Spartanburg 5 Greenwood 51 Greenwood 52 Greenwood 50 Note: Includes fee-in-lieu property Data Source: S.C. Department of Revenue Index of Taxpaying Ability RFA/229B
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 10
SHIFT IN PROPERTY TAX BASE BY SCHOOL DISTRICT RANKS BETWEEN 1974 AND 2017 Percent of Total Tax Base by Quartile 80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% (Percent of Total Tax) of Tax) Total (Percent
20%
10%
0% 21 Districts with Lowest Base 20 Districts with Lower Middle Base 20 Districts with Upper Middle Base 20 Districts with Highest Base
Note: All property including owner occupied and fee-in-lieu TY 1974 TY 2017 Data Source: S.C. Department of Revenue Index of Taxpaying Ability RFA/246
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 11
Key Factors in Developing Model (Continued)
21st Century Economy & Education
• “meet the requirements of a 21st century economy and 21st century education”
This model attempts to incorporate key factors driving local education expenditures in the budgeting process so the impacts on local expenditures and accountability can be identified and measured more easily.
Key Policy Issue – What standards or programs should be included or amended to align model with goals for providing a 21st century education?
Flexibility & Accountability
• “offer more spending flexibility”
The model incorporates formulas for estimating the costs for specific services that can be grouped and/or appropriated by larger categories, but input is needed from all stakeholders regarding the degree of flexibility and the specific items affecting flexibility that need to be addressed. This model anticipates that as more items are grouped into larger categories for basic services, more flexibility will be offered. But at the same time, as additional resources are provided for additional services, less flexibility might be needed.
Key Policy Issue – What specific state laws or regulations should be considered in determining district flexibility?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 12
Limitations and Items Not Addressed in This Report
• Due to the data and time limitation, this report focuses on K-12 education resources for the 81 regular local school districts and excludes the S.C. Public Charter School District and Special School Districts.
o Long-term funding implications of student growth in the S.C. Public Charter School District may be considered in subsequent analyses. (See Appendix for a chart on the history of student growth.)
• This report also focuses on the larger expenditure categories common throughout the 81 regular districts and excludes other education and district programs such as 4-year-old kindergarten and adult education.
List of Abbreviations and Terms
ADM – Average Daily Membership (student count) SDE – S.C. Department of Education CPI – Consumer Price Index TY – Tax Year EFA – Education Finance Act WPU – Weighted Pupil Unit (students weighted by EFA category) EIA – Education Improvement Act FY – Fiscal Year In$ite- S.C. Department of Education expenditure categories Per Pupil – expenditures divided by regular district ADMs
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 13
List of Items Specifically Requested by Topic
I. Current Status Item (a) - A review of current state, federal, and local appropriations, revenues, and expenditures for the operation of public schools in the state and other documents that support the options or recommendations in its [RFA’s] report
II. Budgeting Issues Item (b) - Options or recommendations for simplifying and streamlining state appropriations for public education Item (c) - Recommendations for consolidating existing current line item appropriations into fewer line items by major education programs Item (d) - Options for improving the alignment of appropriations and revenues with local school district expenditures by major education programs
III. Accountability Item (e) - Options for standards or measures of fiscal accountability for funding categories as recommended by the South Carolina Department of Education and options for standards or measures of student performance accountability as recommended by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee Item (f) - Examples of reports that improve simplicity and transparency in reviewing and monitoring state and local funding and revenues, local school district expenditures, and accountability measures at the state and local level
IV. Competitive Workforce Item (h) - A recommendation to create and maintain a competitive work force of teachers by examining the teacher salary structure and providing options to increase the minimum teacher salary to $35,000 or more
V. Consolidation Item (i) - Options or incentives for encouraging consolidation or shared services among local districts
VI. Long-term Focus Item (g) - Methods to simplify estimating or projecting future education funding needs Item (j) - Options to phase-in a higher percentage of state funding than is outlined in the Education Finance Act Item (k) - Recommendations to phase in any funding changes over time and to estimate the cost to hold harmless local school districts during a transition to a new funding model
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 14
Section I - Current Status of Education Funding
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 15
I. Current Status of Education Funding
Item (a) - review of current state, federal, and local appropriations, revenues, and expenditures for the operation of public schools in the state and other documents that support the options or recommendations in its [RFA’s] report.
Status of Model • The model uses the audited school district data reported to the S.C. Department of Education on the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2016-17 to determine a baseline of school district expenditures and revenue sources.
• In FY 2016-17, total expenditures by the 81 regular school districts equaled $11,589.3 million and averaged $16,099 per student.
• Adjustments were made to total expenditures in an attempt to define common expenditures for the model and identify a common or Basic Program.
a. The first step was to subtract inter-fund transfers, exclusions (non-statewide programs such as adult education and pre- kindergarten), and debt service from total expenditures. These changes resulted in adjusted total expenditures of $7,658.6 million and an average of $10,639 per pupil.
Total Expenditures – Transfers – Exclusions – Debt Service = Adjusted Total Expenditures
• FY 2016-17 detailed expenditures, revenues, and the proposed categories can be found at http://rfa.sc.gov/econ/educ/model
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 16
TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE SOURCES, FY 2016-17 Before Adjustments $12,000
Exclusions Exclusions
$10,000 Other Commitments Transfers Transfers
Debt Service Debt Service $8,000 Leadership Other Services Federal District Services
Operations Facilities and $6,000 Transportation Services Local
Instructional Support Millions of Dollars $4,000 State Tax Relief
Instruction Instruction $2,000 State Appropriations
$0 SDE In$ite Expenditure Categories RFA Expenditure Categories Revenue Sources
Data Source: S.C. Dept. of Education; calculations by S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/247
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 17
Total Expenditures and Revenues – RFA Expenditure Categories
• The analysis then removes federal funds and local initiatives (primarily teacher salary supplements) to determine expenditures for the basic education program across all districts. Basic Program expenditures are calculated at $6,226.7 million, an average of $8,650 per student or 81.3 percent of the adjusted total expenditures, and serve as the basis for developing the model. Other services, primarily pupil service activities such as athletics, are excluded from the model.
Adjusted Total Expenditures – Federal Funding – Local Salary Supplement Programs = Basic Program
Total Expenditures - Total Expenditures Federal Local Salary Basic Program Basic Program 81 Regular Districts - Per Pupil Funding Programs Expenditures Per Pupil Total $11,589,286,021 $16,099 $882,127,621 $1,070,715,840 $9,636,442,560 $13,386 Transfers $1,138,302,667 $1,581 $0 $0 $0 Exclusions From Model $1,251,858,348 $1,739 $13,949,748 $123,790,860 $1,114,117,740 Debt Service $1,540,521,504 $2,140 $0 $0 $1,540,521,504 Adjusted Total $7,658,603,502 $10,639 $868,177,873 $563,695,492 $6,226,730,137 $8,650
TOTAL - Instruction $5,395,307,651 $7,495 $547,798,189 $484,750,946 $4,362,758,516 $6,060
TOTAL - Facilities and Transportation $1,446,102,007 $2,009 $320,379,684 $23,609,205 $1,102,113,118 $1,531
TOTAL - District Services $553,353,408 $769 $0 $55,335,341 $498,018,067 $692
TOTAL - Other Services $263,840,436 $367 $0 $263,840,436 $367
ADJUSTED TOTAL $7,658,603,502 $10,639 $868,177,873 $563,695,492 $6,226,730,137 $8,650
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 18
FY 2016-17 EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL Total, Adjusted Total, and Basic Program $18,000
$16,000 Transfers Transfers
$14,000 Exclusions Exclusions
$12,000 Debt Service Debt Service
$10,000 Local Supplements Federal Funds
$8,000
$6,000 Adjusted Total
Basic Program $4,000
$2,000
$0 Total Expenditures Per Pupil Adjusted Total Expenditures Per Pupil Basic Program Expenditures Per Pupil
Data Source: S.C. Dept. of Education; calculations by S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 19
Instruction Expenditures Categories
• The largest education expenditure category used in this report is Instruction, which totaled $4,362.8 million and averaged $6,060 per student for the basic program.
Total Expenditures Total Basic Program - 81 Regular Expenditures Basic Program Examples of Services Per Pupil Districts Per Pupil TOTAL - Instruction $5,395,307,651 $7,495 $4,362,758,516 $6,060 Instruction $4,066,421,387 $5,649 $3,200,481,843 $4,446 Classroom Instructional Support $369,022,722 $513 $298,399,485 $415 Guidance, Library, etc. Vocational $168,180,479 $234 $151,362,431 $210 Career Education Health and Social Workers $139,723,511 $194 $125,751,160 $175 School Nurses IT (estimated at 85% of total IT) $159,543,550 $222 $143,589,195 $199 Classroom Technology School Administration $492,416,002 $684 $443,174,402 $616 Principals and school staff
What student services do expenditures for instruction support? The model attempts to determine how students drive the cost for instructional expenditures. • How many teachers, guidance counselors, school nurses, principals, and other staff are needed to support the students?
• What is the demand for career and technology education resources?
• What are the classroom technology costs?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 20
Teachers and Instructional Staff – Regular 81 School Districts
Positions in South Carolina Average Teacher Salary: 48,414 Positions Eligible for Teacher Supply Funds: 52,593 Positions Eligible for EIA Salary Supplement: 54,594
Categorization of Certified Professionals as used in this report: Includes all Instructional Staff eligible for Teacher Supply Funds or EIA Salary Supplement
Classroom 45,032 Enhanced Instruction 4,032 Other Instruction 4,355
Kindergarten (05)*# 2,431 Special Education – Resource (07)*# 2,727 Guidance Counselors (11) # 2,072
Classroom (08)* # 39,841 Special Education – Itinerant (03) *# 118 Career Specialists (23) # 293 Retired Teachers (09) # 367 Speech Therapist (17)*# 903 Library / Media Specialists (10) # 1,080 Special Education - Self- Occupational / Physical Therapists 2,393 273 Psychologists (85) 542 Contained (06)*# (37) Orientation/Mobility Instructor (38) 2 ROTC Instructors (18) # 367
Audiologists (39) 8
Health and Social 1,469
School Nurse (36) 1,288
Social Workers (40) 181 (Details may not add to totals due to rounding of FTEs)
Notes – All positions are included in state minimum salary scale. Prekindergarten (Child Development) (04)*# teachers are not included in this section of the report. Figures reflect only staff in the regular 81 school districts. Career Specialists (23) are excluded from EIA salary supplement group.
*--- Included in calculation of Average Teacher Salary #-- Eligible for Teacher Supply Funds
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 21
Facilities and Transportation Expenditures Categories
• The second largest education expenditure category is Facilities and Transportation, which totaled $1,102.1 million and averaged $1,531 per student.
Total Expenditures Total Basic Program - 81 Regular Expenditures Basic Program Per Pupil Districts Per Pupil TOTAL - Facilities and Transportation $1,446,102,007 $2,009 $1,102,113,118 $1,531 Food Services $410,138,088 $570 $91,939,069 $128 School Facilities $747,970,507 $1,039 $745,789,842 $1,036 Security and Safety $51,901,359 $72 $51,901,359 $72 Technology Infrastructure $0 $0 $0 $0 Transportation $236,092,053 $328 $212,482,848 $295
What student services do expenditures for facilities and transportation support? Further data and input are needed to better classify the current expenditures and determine appropriate cost drivers. • How do facilities expenditures for maintenance versus electricity differ across districts?
• What is currently being spent for technology infrastructure? Current coding of expenditures does not separate these expenses.
• What services are needed to provide security?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 22
District Services Expenditures Categories
• The third category presented is District Services, which totaled $498.0 million and averaged $692 per student.
Total Expenditures Total Basic Program - 81 Regular Expenditures Basic Program Per Pupil Districts Per Pupil
TOTAL - District Services $553,353,408 $769 $498,018,067 $692 Leadership $72,720,853 $101 $65,448,768 $91 District Services $452,477,811 $629 $407,230,030 $566 IT (estimated at 15% of total IT) $28,154,744 $39 $25,339,270 $35
What student services do expenditures for district services support? Further data and input are need to better classify the current expenditures and determine appropriate cost drivers.
• Are differences in coding affecting comparisons of district expenditures?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 23
BASIC PROGRAM EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL BY RFA CATEGORIES, FY 2016-17 $5,000 Instruction $4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500 School Facilities and Transportation $1,000 District Services $500
$0 Classroom Instr. Vocational/ Health Tech. School Food School Security Transp. Leadership District Tech. Other & Other Support Career & Social (85%) Admin Services Facilities & Safety Services Services (15%) Services Instruction Workers Data Source: S.C. Dept. of Education; calculations by S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 24
FY 2016-17 Expenditures by District for the Basic Program
• The following maps present the differences in district expenditures per pupil for the Basic Program in Instruction, Facilities and Transportation, and District Services categories based on the data as reported.
• Expenditures vary widely by district both in total and per pupil, even when federal funding and local salary supplements are excluded to determine the basic program.
• Differences in coding of expenditures may contribute to these differences and will require further assistance to ensure accurate comparisons.
• FY 2016-17 detailed expenditures and revenues by the proposed categories for each district can be found at: http://rfa.sc.gov/econ/educ/model
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 25
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 26
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 27
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 28
Current Status of Education Funding (Summary)
Next Steps 1. Are the data reported by the expenditure and revenue categories correctly categorized and accurate?
Key Policy Issues • Are the Instruction, Facilities and Transportation, and District Services categories comprised of the appropriate spending items? • What types of expenses should be funded by the state, state and local, or local?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 29
Section II - Budgeting Issues
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 30
II. Budgeting Issues
Item (b) - Options or recommendations for simplifying and streamlining state appropriations for public education. Item (c) - Recommendations for consolidating existing current line item appropriations into fewer line items by major education programs. Item (d) - Options for improving the alignment of appropriations and revenues with local school district expenditures by major education programs.
Status of Model This section uses the education categories previously identified, creates a model to explain the key factors driving those expenditures, and realigns current state appropriations to correspond to those categories.
Proposed Current (Broader areas based upon specific services that can be measured or evaluated) (Examples of current line item appropriations)
Instruction Education Finance Act • Cost for direct and indirect instruction and resources in the classroom setting Employer Contributions
Facilities and Transportation EIA Teacher Salary Supplement • Cost for the school site to house, transport, feed, and provide security Retiree Insurance
Property Tax Relief Funds (School District Portion) District Services • Cost for district-wide services
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 31
Example –Proposed Major Categories and Proposed Budgeting Components
Proposed Major Categories Subcategories – Budgeting Components Total Expenditures
A. Instruction $4,362,758,516 Classroom and Other Instruction $3,200,481,843 Instructional Support $298,399,485 Vocational/Career $151,362,431 Health and Social Workers $125,751,160 Technology (85% of total IT) $143,589,195 School Administration $443,174,402
B. Facilities and Transportation $1,102,113,118 Food Services $91,939,069 School Facilities $745,789,842 Security and Safety $51,901,359 Technology Infrastructure (TBD) $0 Transportation Services $212,482,848
C. District Services $498,018,067 Leadership $65,448,768 District Services $407,230,030 Technology (15% of total IT) $25,339,270
Total Basic Program Expenditures $5,962,889,701
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE –MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 32
Model Part A. - Estimated Cost of a Teacher
Status of Model
The primary resource to educate students is a teacher. This part of the model attempts to identify the total cost of a teacher under the Basic Program.
State Cost of a Teacher in FY 2016-17
Average Salary on South Carolina Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule $45,163 Employer Contribution Cost (24.50%) $11,065 State Health Insurance (Composite Average) $6,357 Professional Development/Training (Average per Teacher) ?
Average Total State Cost of a Teacher $62,585
Key Policy Issues • What costs should be included in estimating the cost of a teacher for the basic program? • Should state appropriations be used to help fund salaries or employer contributions for local district decisions above the basic program?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 33
MILLAGE RATE EQUIVALENT TO ONE TEACHER - TY 2017 Dollar Value of $62,585 11.00 10.50 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 (Mills) 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Lee Aiken Horry Union York 1 York 4 York 3 York 2 Jasper Saluda Marion Sumter Pickens Dillon 4 Dillon 3 Chester Oconee Fairfield Calhoun Colleton Kershaw Berkeley Beaufort Abbeville Edgefield Allendale Marlboro Cherokee Lancaster Newberry Greenville Richland 2 Richland 1 Florence 5 Florence 2 Florence 1 Florence 3 Florence 4 Darlington Charleston Bamberg 2 Bamberg 1 Laurens 56 Laurens 55 Hampton 2 Hampton 1 McCormick Anderson 1 Anderson 3 Anderson 2 Anderson 4 Anderson 5 Lexington 3 Lexington 1 Lexington 4 Lexington 2 Lexington 5 Barnwell 19 Barnwell 29 Barnwell 45 Chesterfield Clarendon 3 Clarendon 1 Clarendon 2 Georgetown Dorchester 4 Dorchester 2 Williamsburg Orangeburg 3 Orangeburg 4 Orangeburg 5 Spartanburg 4 Spartanburg 3 Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 2 Spartanburg 7 Spartanburg 6 Spartanburg 5 Greenwood 51 Greenwood 52 Greenwood 50
Data Source: S.C. Department of Revenue Index of Taxpaying Ability; Calculations by S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs RFA/229C
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 34
Model Part B. - Estimated Total Cost Based on Number of Teachers Needed to Provide Services
Status of Model
• This part of the model attempts to estimate the number of teachers and funding required to accommodate student needs.
• Currently, this model estimates the cost of Instruction to be $4,112.9 million, which underestimates the cost when compared to actual expenditures of $4,362.8 million for the Basic Program. However, further data and analysis are needed regarding classroom and other services for students, and this estimate is expected to change.
• This model is also attempting to estimate the cost of options such as lower student-teacher ratios in the core areas for grades 1-5, but sufficient data are not yet available.
• The ratios of instructional staff per student (ADM) on an average basis statewide were calculated, and the following maps show the ratios by district: All Instructional Staff 12.7 : 1 (Includes: all certified staff eligible for EIA teacher salary supplement) Kindergarten Teachers 20.1 : 1 (Includes: Kindergarten (05) teachers) Classroom Teachers (1-12) 15.5 : 1 (Includes: Classroom (08), Retired (09), and Special Education – Self Contained (06) teachers)
• These ratios reflect all instructional staff supported by state appropriations compared to the number of students in a district, but further data are needed to determine class sizes and other considerations. Additionally, adjustments for positions that are funded largely by federal dollars may be necessary in subsequent analyses.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 35
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 36
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 37
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 38
FY 2016-17 BASIC PROGRAM EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL FOR INSTRUCTION COMPARED TO STUDENT/INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF RATIO $16,000 16.00
$14,000 14.00
$12,000 12.00
$10,000 10.00
$8,000 8.00
$6,000 6.00
$4,000 4.00
$2,000 2.00
$0 0.00 Lee 01 York 04 York 02 York 03 York 01 Aiken 01 Horry 01 Dillon 04 Dillon 03 Union 01Union Jasper 01 Saluda 01 Sumter 01 Marion 10 Pickens 01 Chester 01 Oconee 01 Laurens 55 Laurens 56 Fairfield 01 Calhoun 01 Colleton 01 Kershaw 01 Richland 01 Richland 02 Florence 02 Florence 04 Florence 01 Florence 03 Florence 05 Berkeley 01 Beaufort 01 Barnwell 19 Barnwell 29 Barnwell 45 Bamberg 01 Bamberg 02 Abbeville 60 Edgefield 01 Allendale 01 Hampton 01Hampton Hampton 02Hampton Marlboro 01 Cherokee 01 Lancaster 01 Anderson 04Anderson 02Anderson 03Anderson 05Anderson Anderson 01Anderson Lexington 03 Lexington 02 Lexington 01 Lexington 05 Lexington 04 Newberry 01 Greenville 01 Clarendon 02 Clarendon 01 Clarendon 03 Darlington 01 Charleston 01 Dorchester 04 Dorchester 02 McCormick 01 Greenwood 51 Greenwood 52 Greenwood 50 Orangeburg 04 Orangeburg 05 Orangeburg 03 Chesterfield 01 Spartanburg 05 Spartanburg 03 Spartanburg 01 Spartanburg 07 Spartanburg 06 Spartanburg 04 Spartanburg 02 Georgetown 01 Williamsburg 01
Basic Program Expenditures Per Pupil -Instruction Student/Instructional Staff Ratio Note: Instructional staff includes all positions eligible for EIA salary supplement. Data Source: S.C. Dept. of Education; calculations by S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/253
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 39
Budgeting Worksheet for Subcategories – Instruction
Student/ Headcount/ Teacher Estimated # of Avg. Cost / Service Need Ratio Teachers Teacher Estimated Total Cost I. Classroom Kindergarten 48,774 20:1 2,420 $62,585 $151,455,700 Aides ? ? ? ? ? OPTION - Adjust ratio for poverty impact in Core Subject Areas Non-poverty Affected *Additional data Poverty Affected required to determine
Classroom - Grades 1-12 class sizes and (Classroom (08) & Retired Teachers (09)) 671,105 17:1 40,208 $62,585 $2,516,417,680 student/teacher ratios OPTION - Adjust ratio for poverty impact in Core Subject Areas in core subject areas. Non-poverty Affected Poverty Affected
Special Education (Self Contained) ? ? 2,393 $62,585 $149,765,905 I. Subtotal - Classroom $2,817,639,285
II. Enhanced Instruction* Special Education (Itinerant and Resource) ? 2,609 $62,585 $163,284,265 *Additional data Speech Therapists ? 903 ? required to determine Audiologists ? 10 ? Occupational/Physical Therapists ? 281 ? service needs for Enhanced Instruction. II. Subtotal – Enhanced Instruction $163,284,265
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 40
Example - Budgeting Option: Fund a Lower Student/Teacher Ratio for Students Affected by Poverty
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 41
Example - Estimated Impact to Target or Lower Student to Classroom Teacher Ratios
Number of Students: 719,879 Average Cost per Teacher: $62,585
Incremental Changes at Each Level Estimated Number Estimated Cost of Classroom of Teachers Classroom Additional Additional Additional Cost Ratio Needed Teachers Cost Per Student Teachers* Cost* per Student*
20 35,994 $2,252,681,361 $3,129 19 37,888 $2,371,243,538 $3,294 1,894 $118,562,177 $165 18 39,993 $2,502,979,290 $3,477 2,105 $131,735,752 $183 17 42,346 $2,650,213,366 $3,681 2,353 $147,234,076 $205 16 44,992 $2,815,851,701 $3,912 2,647 $165,638,335 $230 15 47,992 $3,003,575,148 $4,172 2,999 $187,723,447 $261
*Assumes no district is at or below the targeted ratio.
Note: Subject to revision based upon additional data and determination of student service needs or other student/teacher ratio goals for poverty or core subject areas.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 42
Budgeting Worksheet for Subcategories – Instruction (Continued)
Student/ Estimated # of Headcount/ Teacher Service Estimated Total Cost Service Need Ratio Providers Avg. Cost for Basic Program III. Other Instruction Psychologists ? 2,420 $62,585 $151,455,700 Guidance Counselors* 719,879 347:1 2,072 $62,585 $129,676,120 Career Specialists 210,583 719:1 293 $62,585 $18,337,405 Library/Media * 719,879 665:1 1,082 $62,585 $67,716,970 ROTC Instructors ? 1.8/HS 367 $62,585 $22,968,695 III. Subtotal - Other Instruction $390,154,890
IV. Health and Social Services Nurses 719,879 527:1 1,367 $62,585 $85,553,695 Social Workers ? 198 $62,585 $12,391,830 IV. Subtotal - Health and Social Services $85,553,695
V. Technology (Instruction) Technology - 85% 719,879 $168 $120,941,149 V. Subtotal - Technology (Instruction) $120,941,149
VI. Vocational/Career Vocational and Career Education 103,590 ? $130,970,398 VI. Subtotal - Vocational/Career $130,970,398
VII. School Administration Administrators/Principals 2.6/School 3,126 ? ? Administrative Staff ? ? ? VII. Subtotal - School Administration $391,969,239
Total Instruction *Subject to change with (Based upon teachers/service need) $4,112,904,751 additional data
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 43
Budgeting Worksheet for Subcategories – Facilities and Transportation
Status of Model
This part of the model is still under development. As a decision point to engage discussion on appropriate comparisons, the estimated total cost and average per school are presented below. School Facilities expenses are a large part of total Facilities and Transportation expenditures, most of which are supported by local funds.
Average per School Site Estimated Total Cost for Basic Program Food Services $76,616 $91,939,069 School Facilities $621,492 $745,789,842 Security and Safety $43,251 $51,901,359 Transportation Services $177,069 $212,482,848 Technology Infrastructure TBD TBD
Total Facilities and Transportation $918,428 $1,102,113,118
Data Issues • What are the detailed school facilities expenditures? How much is spent on operating costs, such as electricity, compared to maintenance? • Are security and safety expenditures also included in other expenditure categories? • What are districts spending for technology infrastructure?
Key Policy Issue • What expenditures for facilities and transportation are state, local, or state and local?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 44
Budgeting Worksheet for Subcategories – District Services
Status of Model
This part of the model is still under development. As a decision point to engage discussion on appropriate comparison, the estimated total cost and average per district are presented below.
Average Cost per District Estimated Total Cost for Basic Program Leadership $808,009 $65,448,768 District Services $5,027,531 $407,230,030 Technology - District Services (15%) $312,830 $25,339,270
Total District Services $6,148,371 $498,018,067
Data Issues • Are there differences in reporting of district expenditures across the categories?
Key Policy Issue • What services can or should be shared and how can the state identify and encourage best practices for providing district services?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 45
Example - Budgeting Worksheet: Estimated Total Cost and State / Local Funding Share of Basic Program for FY 2016-17
Based upon current funding for Basic Program
Estimated Estimated Proposed Major Categories Subcategories - Budgeting Components Total Funding State Funding Local Funding
A. Instruction $4,362,758,516 $3,842,063,586 $520,694,930
Classroom and Enhanced Instruction $3,200,481,843
Other Instruction $298,399,485
Vocational/Career $151,362,431
Health and Social Workers $125,751,160
Technology (85%) $143,589,195
School Administration $443,174,402
B. Facilities and Transportation $1,102,113,118 $60,759,030 $1,041,354,088
Food Services $91,939,069
School Facilities $745,789,842
Security and Safety $51,901,359
Technology Infrastructure $0
Transportation Services $212,482,848
C. District Services $498,018,067 $353,959,866 $144,058,201
Leadership $65,448,768
District Services $407,230,030
Technology (15%) $25,339,270
Total Basic Program Expenditures $5,962,889,701 $4,256,782,482 $1,706,107,219
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 46
Example - Budgeting Detail Option: Appropriations by Local School District
Classroom Other Instructional Health and Student Services Technology Vocational/Career School Administration Number of Number of Number of Number of Total District ADM Property Tax Index Teachers Appropriations Teachers Appropriations Teachers Appropriations Appropriations Appropriations Administrators Appropriations Appropriations Abbeville 60 2,919 2,697 Aiken 01 24,016 22,195 Allendale 01 1,149 1,051 Anderson 01 9,631 8,950 Anderson 02 3,688 3,438 Anderson 03 2,504 2,332 Anderson 04 2,812 2,614 Anderson 05 12,438 11,455 Bamberg 01 1,327 1,236 Bamberg 02 669 604 Barnwell 19 627 580 Barnwell 29 873 814 Barnwell 45 2,142 1,972 Beaufort 01 20,916 19,352 Berkeley 01 32,962 30,523 Calhoun 01 1,648 1,502 Charleston 01 46,468 42,642 Cherokee 01 8,569 7,896 Chester 01 5,040 4,646 Chesterfield 01 6,980 6,450 Clarendon 01 741 692 Clarendon 02 2,799 2,601 Clarendon 03 1,191 1,105 Colleton 01 5,486 5,098 Darlington 01 9,822 9,116 Dillon 03 1,584 1,473
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 47
Budgeting Issues (Summary)
Next Steps 1. Need additional information to separate some line item appropriations such as employer contributions and retiree insurance into the various education programs. 2. Provide justification of the total expenditures by major education categories by estimating the cost. 3. Need additional data to determine service needs for exceptional students and methodology for allocating resources to students.
Key Policy Issues - II. Budgeting Issues • What spending flexibility should districts have with regard to budgeted expenditures? • To which specific education categories should Property Tax Relief funds be allocated? • Under this model, funding for the additional EFA add-on weights will be reallocated in the following manner: o Poverty – lower class size o Should other current EFA add-ons be addressed? If so, how should these services be measured and allocated? (Other current add-ons: Academic Assistance, Gifted and Talented, Limited English Proficiency, and Dual Credit Enrollment) • Is dual-credit enrollment a public education or a technical college expense?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 48
Section III. - Accountability, Flexibility, & Transparency
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 49
III. Accountability, Flexibility, & Transparency
Item (e) - Options for standards or measures of fiscal accountability for funding categories as recommended by the South Carolina Department of Education and options for standards or measures of student performance accountability as recommended by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. Item (f) - Examples of reports that improve simplicity and transparency in reviewing and monitoring state and local funding and revenues, local school district expenditures, and accountability measures at the state and local level.
Status of Model
This part of the model is still under development. Further discussions with stakeholders regarding performance metrics and accountability measures are needed to provide a framework for reporting.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 50
Example - Reporting Options for Fiscal Accountability The level of reporting detail will depend upon the metrics and measures determined for fiscal accountability and transparency. Instruction (1000)
Classroom Instruction (1100) Other Instruction (1200) (Continued)...
Classroom Instruction Classroom Instruction Classroom Instruction Other Instruction (Continued)... Wages (1110) Fringe (1120) Operating (1130) Wages (1210)
Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Classroom Other Instruction Instruction - Instruction - Instruction Instruction Instruction Instruction Wages Wages Fringe Fringe Operating Operating Wages (Continued)... State Sources Local Sources State Sources Local Sources State Sources Local Sources State Sources (1111) (1112) (1121) (1121) (1131) (1132) (1211)
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 51
Education Oversight Committee Recommended Metrics for Student Performance and Accountability
The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC) provided input regarding options for measuring student performance. The complete response provided by the S.C. Education Oversight Committee is attached in the Appendix.
• The EOC provided a detailed listing of metrics for consideration at the state, district, and school level.
• The metrics are based upon the existing accountability system that evaluates the performance of our public education system using multiple indicators as required by both federal and state laws. The metrics also include those specifically identified in Section 59-18- 1950 of the South Carolina Code of Laws enacted with Act 94 (H.3969) of 2017. Furthermore, all metrics, where available, should be disaggregated by race, socioeconomic status, and other subgroups such as students with disabilities and English language learners to ensure that South Carolina is addressing the educational needs of all students.
• At the state and district levels, the metrics focus on the goal of creating a 21st century workforce as defined by the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate.
• At the school level (primary, elementary, middle, and high schools), the EOC would recommend evaluating school performance against the same indicators reported on the annual school report cards. These indicators focus on preparing students with the skills and opportunities to succeed in a 21st century economy.
• While the state currently collects financial data at the district level, the EOC acknowledges that a financial data system at the school- level must be created. The EOC cannot overemphasize the importance of having financial data at the school level where accountability for student performance can be best measured.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 52
Accountability, Flexibility, & Transparency (Summary)
Next Steps 1. Meet with stakeholders to discuss and identify general and specific flexibility items and metrics for accountability.
Key Policy Issues • What are the accountability expectations of the stakeholders? • How much flexibility should be given regarding allocation of state funding? • What is the timing for implementation of modifications to accounting systems and reporting given the substantial changes under consideration?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 53
Section IV – Competitive Workforce of Teachers
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 54
IV. Competitive Workforce of Teachers
Item (h) - A recommendation to create and maintain a competitive workforce of teachers by examining the teacher salary structure and providing options to increase the minimum teacher salary to $35,000 or more
Status of Model • Defining a competitive salary for teachers is difficult as there are varying opinions as to what the standard for comparison should be. Further analysis is needed regarding the factors driving differences in salaries among professions, which include: o Working conditions such as differences in 190 working days for teachers compared to 240 days for many other professions. o Economic demand driving higher salaries for workers in professions such as engineering or IT and private sector versus government employees. o Policy issues resulting from differences in the salary scale by years of experience and education level. o Differences in total compensation packages including benefits.
• The average teacher salary in South Carolina for FY 2016-17 was $50,050 and was $69 under the estimated Southeastern average salary of $50,119. Since 1985, the South Carolina average has varied above and below the Southeastern average. However, comparing teachers’ salaries to other professions in South Carolina may be more appropriate. (See Appendix for chart)
• The following charts outline actual teacher salaries by education level compared to wages for all government and private sector employees in South Carolina. The average teacher salary is above the average wage for all government employees with a bachelor’s degree but below average wage for government employees with a master’s degree and private sector workers with a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree. When teachers’ salaries are compared to wages for other professions on a daily wage rate, the average daily rate for teachers (190 contract days) is higher than the average daily rate for all government employees with a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree and private sector employees with a bachelor’s degree (240 working days).
Note: For this section, all actual teacher counts and salaries include special district teachers for consistency with state reporting.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 55
FY 2016-17 SOUTH CAROLINA ACTUAL AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY BY DEGREE VS. 2017 AVERAGE WAGE FOR GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTORS BY DEGREE $80,000 725 Teachers 1.44% $70,000 8,449 Teachers 16.80% $60,000 4,269 22,575 Teachers Teachers 8.49% 44.88% $50,000 14,288 Teachers 28.40% $40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 Bachelor's Avg. Gov. Wage Bachelor's + 18 Master's Avg. Gov. Wage Master's + 30 Hours Avg. Private Sector Doctorate Avg. Private Sector with Bachelor's Hours with Master's Wage with Wage with Master's FY 2016-17 SC Average Teacher Salary Bachelor's
Note: Includes regular and special district teachers in positions coded as pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, classroom, special education, and speech therapists. Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Public Use Microdata Sample; S.C. Dept. of Education Professional Certified Staff Data RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 56
FY 2016-17 AVERAGE DAILY WAGE FOR TEACHERS BY DEGREE VS. 2017 AVERAGE DAILY WAGE FOR GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTORS BY DEGREE $400 725 Teachers 1.44% $350 8,449 Teachers 16.80% $300 4,269 22,575 Teachers Teachers 8.49% 44.88%
$250 14,288 Teachers 28.40% $200 Daily Wage $150
$100
$50
$0 Bachelor's Avg. Gov. Wage Bachelor's + 18 Master's Avg. Gov. Wage Master's + 30 Hours Avg. Private Sector Doctorate Avg. Private Sector with Bachelor's Hours with Master's Wage with Wage with Master's Bachelor's FY 2016-17 SC Average Teacher Salary
Note: Includes regular and special district teachers: pre-K, kindergarten, classroom, special education, and speech therapists. Based upon 190 teaching contract days and 240 all occupation working days. Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Public Use Microdata Sample; S.C. Dept. of Education Professional Certified Staff Data RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 57
Status of Model (Continued)
• Determining competitiveness of teacher salaries solely based upon the state “average” teacher salary, however, is problematic as the current state minimum teacher salary has a wide range of potential salaries. The average salary for the degree held by the teacher varies greatly.
• The average years of experience also varies greatly by education level. The average is 13 years, but bachelor’s degree teachers averaged only 7.4 years of experience, while doctorate degree teachers averaged the most with an average of 18.9 years of experience. (See Appendix for chart)
• The following charts outline the salary schedule at each education level and compare the schedule to the average wages by education level in South Carolina. The charts also show how extending the schedule from the current twenty-three years to thirty years would impact the salary range.
• Without a local supplement, the state minimum salary scales for teachers with a bachelor’s degree or bachelor’s degree plus 18 graduate hours never reach the state average.
• The last chart compares how the average salary on the schedule for teachers at each education level would increase if the schedules are extended to thirty years. The average actual salary statewide as of FY 2016-17, including the local supplement, would increase from $50,050 to approximately $52,726.
• This section focuses on annual compensation issues regarding the minimum salary schedule and does not reflect all of the data or issues presented in the previous section. Furthermore, this analysis does not address issues related to working conditions such as class size, planning time, or additional duties.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 58
FY 2016-17 STATE TEACHER SALARY - BACHELOR'S DEGREE AND LOCAL SUPPLEMENT BY YEARS OF SERVICE TO AVERAGE WAGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA $80,000
Additional Steps $70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Years of Experience Min. Salary with Bachelor's 10% Average Local Supplement SC Average Teacher Salary Avg. Gov. Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Gov. Wage with Master's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Master's
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Public Use Microdata Sample; S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 59
FY 2016-17 STATE TEACHER SALARY - BACHELOR'S DEGREE + 18 HOURS & LOCAL SUPPLEMENT BY YEARS OF SERVICE TO AVERAGE WAGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA $80,000
Additional Steps $70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Years of Experience Min Salary with Bachelor's + 18 10% Average Local Supplement SC Average Teacher Salary Avg. Gov. Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Gov. Wage with Master's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Master's Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Public Use Microdata Sample; S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 60
FY 2016-17 STATE TEACHER SALARY - MASTER'S DEGREE AND LOCAL SUPPLEMENT BY YEARS OF SERVICE TO AVERAGE WAGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA $80,000
Additional Steps $70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Years of Experience Min. Salary with Master's 10% Average Local Supplement SC Average Teacher Salary Avg. Gov. Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Gov. Wage with Master's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Master's
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Public Use Microdata Sample; S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 61
FY 2016-17 STATE TEACHER SALARY - MASTER'S DEGREE + 30 HOURS & LOCAL SUPPLEMENT BY YEARS OF SERVICE TO AVERAGE WAGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA $80,000
Additional Steps $70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Years of Experience Min. Salary with Master's + 30 10% Average Local Supplement SC Average Teacher Salary Avg. Gov. Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Gov. Wage with Master's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Master's
Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Public Use Microdata Sample; S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 62
FY 2016-17 STATE TEACHER SALARY - DOCTORATE DEGREE AND LOCAL SUPPLEMENT BY YEARS OF SERVICE TO AVERAGE WAGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA $80,000 Additional Steps
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Years of Experience
Min. Salary with Doctorate 10% Average Local Supplement SC Average Teacher Salary Avg. Gov. Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Gov. Wage with Master's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Bachelor's Avg. Private Sector Wage with Master's Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017, Public Use Microdata Sample; S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 63
FY 2016-17 CAREER AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY BY DEGREE COMPARED TO ESTIMATED CAREER AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY WITH ADDITIONAL STEPS 10% Local Salary Supplement Included $70,000
$62,588 $60,000 $59,227 $55,006 $52,726 $51,592 $52,315 $50,050 $50,119 $48,974 $50,000 $47,124 $45,421 $44,729 $43,065
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 Bachelor's Bachelor's + 18 Hours Master's SC Average Teacher Southeast Average Master's + 30 Hours Doctorate Salary Teacher Salary Average Annual Wage Average Annual Wage - Add. Steps Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 64
Competitive Workforce of Teachers (Summary)
Next Steps 1. Incorporate feedback from stakeholders into analysis of teacher salary costs and projections.
Key Policy Issues • What is an appropriate measure for determining a competitive wage for teachers compared to other professions? Total salary, salary per day, average hourly wage? • Should the state minimum salary schedule be extended beyond twenty-three years? How many years? • The current state minimum salary schedule has different salaries based upon level of education. The salary difference between the lowest and highest classes is forty percent, while years of experience is not weighted as heavily. Is the difference in salary schedule among class of teachers acceptable or does it need to be adjusted? • What occupational wage categories, other than the average state wage, should be used for comparing average teacher salaries in S.C.? • Should options be included to address potential costs for changes to working conditions, such as more planning or free time?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 65
Section V – Consolidation of Districts
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 66
V. Consolidation of Districts
Item (i) - Options or incentives for encouraging consolidation or shared services among local districts
Status of Model
This section of the report is still under development. Data are being collected and reviewed for accuracy before an analysis can be conducted.
Analyses to be conducted: 1. Ranking of Total Expenditures for District Services and Per Pupil Expenditures for District Services by ADM 2. Compare Total Expenditures for Districts for groups of smaller districts to larger districts with a similar ADM total 3. Calculate ratio of Total Expenditures for District Services to Instruction Expenditures 4. Calculate ratio of total employees to certified instructional staff
The following charts show the distribution of schools around the state by type and examples of analyses to be conducted.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 67
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 68
Examples – Comparison of District Services Expenditures by District Size
The following example shows one potential option for future comparisons of districts:
Total District Basic Program District Total District Basic Program District ADM Services Services Services Per Pupil Services Per Pupil Districts with 1,000 – 2,000 Students District A 1,150 $2,550,173 $2,233,770 $2,218 $1,942 District B 1,650 $2,370,047 $2,083,904 $1,436 $1,263 District C 1,960 $3,184,573 $2,896,026 $1,625 $1,478 Group 1 (Districts D & E) SIMILAR COST 2,000 $3,006,726 $2,750,567 $1,503 $1,375
Districts with 10,000 – 15,000 Students District F 10,520 $6,825,159 $5,820,949 $649 $553 Group 2 (Districts G & H) HIGHER COST 11,140 $10,243,795 $8,896,568 $920 $799
Group 3 (Districts I & J) HIGHER COST 12,530 $16,267,578 $14,317,822 $1,298 $1,143 District K 12,760 $7,620,771 $6,313,366 $597 $495
* Examples developed from actual districts. Groups reflect total of districts in a county not currently consolidated.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 69
Consolidation of Districts – Summary
Next Steps 1. Develop analyses of district expenditures and comparisons
Key Policy Issue • What other types of analysis of district consolidation should be conducted?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 70
Section VI – Long-term Focus
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 71
VI. Long-Term Focus
Item (g) - Methods to simplify estimating or projecting future education funding needs Item (j) - Options to phase-in a higher percentage of state funding than is outlined in the Education Finance Act Item (k) - Recommendations to phase in any funding changes over time and to estimate the cost to hold harmless local school districts during a transition to a new funding model
Status of Model
Items (g), (j), and (k) each relate to a long-term view of measuring, increasing, or transitioning education funding.
This report outlines a format that attempts to include the key variables affecting education expenses and funding, the expected growth in revenue, and the cost of implementing top priorities.
The details for items (j) and (k) needed to complete a long-term view will depend on the policy decisions and priorities.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 72
Example - Three-Year Fiscal Outlook for Education Funding
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23
BUDGET FACTORS Estimated Number of Students 720,316 Budgeted Number of Teachers TBD Total Number of Teachers TBD Average S.C. Teacher Salary TBD
STATE REVENUES Estimated General Fund Revenue Growth* $274,500,000 $339,300,000 $317,100,000 One-third (one-fourth, one-half?) of Total Growth $91,500,000 $113,100,000 $105,700,000 Estimated Growth in EIA Revenue $34,700,000 $36,200,000 Estimated Growth in Property Tax Relief Trust Fund (School Portion) $33,488,000 $33,748,000 $35,002,000
STATE APPROPRIATIONS Enrollment Growth (Cost to Maintain Class Size, Employer Contributions) $ ? Teacher Salaries (a) One Percent Salary Increase $ ? (b) Additional Year on Salary Schedule for All Classes $ ? Other Education Programs $ ? Hold-harmless Provision $ ? Higher Percentage of State Funding $ ?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 73
Long-Term Focus (Summary)
Next Steps 1. Incorporate final analysis of model with updated data and feedback from stakeholders into long-term projections
Key Policy Issues • What other factors should be considered in long-term planning for education? • What is the priority order for implementing any changes to funding among equity, teacher salaries, classroom size, or other goals?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 74
Next Steps - Timeline
• Briefings with individual stakeholders – in person meetings and online survey (May 2019)
• Receive feedback on policy decisions from stakeholders (May 2019)
• Verify expenditure and revenue details of key budget and worksheet categories (May – June 2019)
• Verify teacher and student count data (May – June 2019)
• Determine budgeting and needed resources of special education services in conjunction with federal funding requirements (May – June 2019)
• Finalize detailed analysis and impact (July – August 2019)
• Update Report (September 12, 2019)
• Prepare Budget Worksheet for FY 2020-21 Appropriation Act process (October 2019)
• Amend In$ite and other fiscal reporting codes (Fall 2019)
• Expand analysis to school level (Summer 2020)
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 75
Appendix
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 76
APPENDIX
Additional Charts and Data
Summary of Current Funding Items vs. Model 1. Summary of Assumptions and Details in Current Funding Items to Model
Students and Teachers 2. Average Daily Membership – Regular School Districts and S.C. Public Charter District 3. South Carolina – Number Of Teachers, National Education Association Teacher Definition 4. South Carolina Student/Teacher Ratio, National Education Association Teacher Definition 5. South Carolina and Southeastern Average Teacher Salary Since FY 1989-90 6. FY 2016-17 Average Years of Teaching Experience by Degree
FY 2016-17 Expenditures and Revenues 7. Total Expenditures and Revenues for Instruction – FY 2016-17 8. Total Expenditures and Revenues for Facilities and Transportation – FY 2016-17 9. Total Expenditures and Revenues for District Services – FY 2016-17 10. Basic Program Expenditures for Instruction – FY 2016-17 11. Basic Program Expenditures for Facilities and Transportation – FY 2016-17 12. Basic Program Expenditures for District Services – FY 2016-17
Property Taxes 13. School District Property Tax Relief, FY 1995-96 to FY 2021-22 14. Total Millage Rate Increase Limitation on School Districts Since 2008- TY 2017 15. Constitutional General Obligation Debt Limitation – TY 2017, 8 Percent of Assessed Value in School District 16. Estimated Debt Service Millage Rate to Fund a $20 Million Facility – TY 2017, Based on School Debt Millage
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 77
Summary of Assumptions and Details in Current Funding Items to Model
Current Model
Education Finance Act Instruction • Base Student Cost of $ 2,485 for FY 2018-19 • Average cost of $ 6,060 per pupil for basic program • 26:1 Student Teacher Ratio • Salary and Employer Contribution for Certified Educators • 1 Superintendent, 1 Ass’t Superintendent per 6,000 students • 50,000 Certified Personnel, Student Teacher Ratio 16:1 • 5 Secretaries per 6,000 students • May include other school staff and data issues are resolved • 1 Fiscal Officer per 6,000 students • No student weights; Funding determined by services • 1 Program Consultant per 750 students • 1 – Principal, Secretary, Attendance, Librarian for 375 students • 1 – Ass’t Principal, Library Aide, Guidance if over 500 students Facilities and Transportation • Weights for students determine funding • School facilities, food services, transportation, and security • Average cost of $1,531 per pupil for basic program Employer Contributions • Social Security taxes, Health Insurance, Retirement District Services • (Average 70 on all employees, approximately 105,000) • District Leadership, Operations, and Technology
• Average cost of $692 per pupil for basic program Teacher Salary Supplement • State supplement to EFA portion of State Minimum Salary
Property Tax Relief Funds • Fixed, Formula, and Dollar for Dollar reimbursements
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 78
AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP Regular School Districts and S.C. Public Charter District 800,000
750,000
700,000
Average Annual Growth Rate Since FY 1984-85: 0.51% 650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000 FY 1984-85 FY 1984-85 FY 1985-86 FY 1986-87 FY 1987-88 FY 1988-89 FY 1989-90 FY 1990-91 FY 1991-92 FY 1992-93 FY 1993-94 FY 1994-95 FY 1995-96 FY 1996-97 FY 1997-98 FY 1998-99 FY 1999-00 FY 2001-02 FY 2002-03 FY 2003-04 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2000- 01 FY 2015-16
Average Daily Membership Total with S.C. Public Charter School District FY 2018-19 (est) FY 2019-20 (est) Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/189 *
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 79
SOUTH CAROLINA - NUMBER OF TEACHERS National Education Association Teacher Definition 51,000
50,000
49,000
48,000
47,000
46,000
45,000
44,000 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY
Data Source: National Education Association (NEA), FY 2006-07 figure is an estimate by NEA RFA/252
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 80
SOUTH CAROLINA STUDENT/TEACHER RATIO National Education Association Teacher Definition 15.00
14.80
14.60
14.40
14.20
14.00
13.80
13.60
13.40
13.20
13.00 FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY
Data Source: National Education Association (NEA), FY 2006-07 figure is an estimate by NEA; S.C. Department of Education 135-day average daily membership RFA/252
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 81
SOUTH CAROLINA AND SOUTHEASTERN AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY Since FY 1989-90 $60,000
$55,000
$50,000
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000 FY 90 FY 91 FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 10 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 08 FY 09 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 19e FY 20e
South Carolina Actual Projected SE Avg. for Budget SE Avg. with Revisions
Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 82
FY 2016-17 AVERAGE YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE BY DEGREE
Doctorate 18.9
Master's + 30 Hours 18.7
Average (All Degrees) 13.0
Master's 13.6
Bachelor's + 18 Hours 16.1
Bachelor's 7.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Years of Experience
Data Source: S.C. Dept. of Education Professional Certified Staff Data; S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/244
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 83
TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR INSTRUCTION - FY 2016-17 $6,000
School Administration Local - All Other $5,000 Technology (85%) Health and Social Workers Local - Salary Supplement Vocational/Career Instructional Support $4,000
$3,000
State - Total Funds
Millions of Dollars $2,000 Classroom and Other Instruction
$1,000
Federal $0 Expenditures Revenues Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 84
TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION - FY 2016-17 $1,600
$1,400 Transportation Services
$1,200 Security and Safety
$1,000 Local -All Other
$800 School Facilities
$600 Millions of Dollars
$400 Local - Salary Supplement State - Total Funds
$200 Food Services Federal
$0 Expenditures Revenues Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 85
TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR DISTRICT SERVICES - FY 2016-17 $600
Technology (15%)
$500 Leadership Local - All Other
$400 Local - Salary Supplement
$300
District Services
Millions of Dolalrs $200 State - Total Funds
$100
$0 Expenditures Revenues Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 86
BASIC PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR INSTRUCTION - FY 2016-17 $5,000
$4,500
School Administration $4,000 Technology (85%) Health and Social Workers $3,500 Vocational/Career Instructional Support
$3,000
$2,500
Millions of Dollars $2,000
Classroom and Other Instruction $1,500
$1,000
$500
$0 Data Source: S.C. Dept. of Education; calculations by S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 87
BASIC PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION - FY 2016-17 $1,200
$1,000 Transportation Services
Security and Safety $800
$600
Millions of Dollars School Facilities $400
$200
Food Services $0 Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 88
BASIC PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR DISTRICT SERVICES - FY 2016-17 $600
$500 Technology (15%)
Leadership
$400
$300 Millions of Dollars
$200 District Services
$100
$0
Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/248
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 89
SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FY 1995-96 to FY 2021-22 $1,400
$1,200 Act 388 of 2006
$1,000
$800
$600 Millions of Dollars
$400
$200
$0 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 16 FY 17 FY FY 15 FY FY 18 e FY 19 e FY 20 e FY 21 e FY
Data Source: S.C. Dept. of Revenue, Tax Collections by County; S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, Local Government Finance Report RFA/254
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 90
TOTAL MILLAGE RATE INCREASE LIMITATION ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS SINCE 2008 - TY 2017
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Lee 1 York 1 York 2 York 4 York 3 Aiken 1 Horry 1 Dillon 3 Dillon 4 Union 1 Union Jasper 1 Saluda 1 Sumter 1 Pickens 1 Chester 1 Oconee 1 Fairfield 1 Calhoun 1 Calhoun Colleton 1 Marion 10 Kershaw 1 Kershaw Richland 2 Richland 1 Florence 1 Florence 5 Florence 3 Florence 2 Florence 4 Berkeley 1 Beaufort 1 Bamberg 1 Bamberg 2 Laurens 55 Laurens 56 Edgefield 1 Allendale 1 Hampton 2 Hampton 1 Marlboro 1 Cherokee 1 Lancaster 1 Anderson 2 Anderson 3 Anderson 5 Anderson 4 Anderson 1 Lexington 2 Lexington 1 Lexington 3 Lexington 5 Lexington 4 Newberry 1 Barnwell 29 Barnwell 19 Barnwell 45 Greenville 1 Clarendon 1 Clarendon 2 Clarendon 3 Abbeville 60 Darlington 1 Charleston 1 Dorchester 2 Dorchester 4 McCormick 1 McCormick Orangeburg 5 Orangeburg 3 Orangeburg 4 Chesterfield 1 Spartanburg 3 Spartanburg 5 Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 2 Spartanburg 4 Spartanburg 6 Spartanburg 7 Georgetown 1 Greenwood 51 Greenwood 52 Greenwood 50 Williamsburg 1 CPI Population /a Dillon School Districts 1 and 2 merged to create Dillon School District 4 in FY 2012 /b Marion School Districts 1, 2, and 7 merged to create Marion School District in FY 2013 /c Sumter School Districts 2 and 17 merged to created the Sumter School District in FY 2011 Data Source: S.C. Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office RFA/223 The population factor for these consolidated school districts is estimated as if these districts had merged prior to FY 2007-08.
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 91
CONSTITUTIONAL GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT LIMITATION - TY 2017 8 Percent of Assessed Value in School District $325
$300
$275
$250
$225
$200
$175
$150
$125 (Millions of Dollars) $100
$75
$50 $20,000,000 school facility
$25
$0 Lee Aiken Horry Union York 1 York 3 York 4 York 2 Jasper Saluda Marion Sumter Pickens Dillon 4 Dillon 3 Chester Oconee Fairfield Calhoun Colleton Kershaw Berkeley Beaufort Abbeville Edgefield Allendale Marlboro Cherokee Lancaster Newberry Greenville Richland 1 Richland 2 Florence 1 Florence 3 Florence 4 Florence 5 Florence 2 Darlington Charleston Bamberg 2 Bamberg 1 Laurens 55 Laurens 56 Hampton 1 Hampton 2 Hampton McCormick Anderson 1 Anderson Anderson 4 Anderson Anderson 2 Anderson Anderson 5 Anderson Anderson 3 Anderson Lexington 1 Lexington 5 Lexington 2 Lexington 3 Lexington 4 Barnwell 19 Barnwell 45 Barnwell 29 Chesterfield Clarendon 3 Clarendon Clarendon 2 Clarendon Clarendon 1 Clarendon Georgetown Dorchester 2 Dorchester 4 Williamsburg Orangeburg 5 Orangeburg 4 Orangeburg 3 Spartanburg 5 Spartanburg 6 Spartanburg 2 Spartanburg 7 Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 3 Spartanburg 4 Spartanburg Greenwood 50Greenwood 52Greenwood 51Greenwood
Data Source: S.C. Department of Revenue Index of Taxpaying Ability; Calculations by RFA RFA/251
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 92
ESTIMATED DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE RATE TO FUND A $20 MILLION FACILITY - TY 2017 Based on School Debt Millage 200
180
160
140
120
100 (Mills) 80
60
40
20
0 Lee Aiken Horry Union York 2 York 4 York 3 York 1 Jasper Saluda Marion Sumter Pickens Dillon 4 Dillon 3 Chester Oconee Fairfield Calhoun Colleton Kershaw Berkeley Beaufort Abbeville Edgefield Allendale Marlboro Cherokee Lancaster Newberry Greenville Richland 2 Richland 1 Florence 5 Florence 1 Florence 2 Florence 4 Florence 3 Darlington Charleston Bamberg 2 Bamberg 1 Laurens 55 Laurens 56 Hampton 2 Hampton 1 McCormick Anderson 1 Anderson 5 Anderson 2 Anderson 4 Anderson 3 Lexington 1 Lexington 5 Lexington 2 Lexington 4 Lexington 3 Barnwell 19 Barnwell 29 Barnwell 45 Chesterfield Clarendon 3 Clarendon 2 Clarendon 1 Georgetown Dorchester 2 Dorchester 4 Williamsburg Orangeburg 3 Orangeburg 4 Orangeburg 5 Spartanburg 4 Spartanburg 3 Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 2 Spartanburg 7 Spartanburg 5 Spartanburg 6 Greenwood 51 Greenwood 52 Greenwood 50
Note: Based on 5% interest and a 15 year repayment schedule Data Source: S.C. Department of Revenue Index of Taxpaying Ability; Calculations by RFA RFA/245
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 93
List of Key Policy Issues
Overall • What standards or programs should be included or amended to align model with goals for providing a 21st century education? • What specific state laws or regulations should be considered in determining district flexibility?
I. Current Status • Are the Instruction, Facilities and Transportation, and District Services categories comprised of the appropriate spending items? • What types of expenses should be funded by the state, state and local, or local?
II. Budgeting Issues • What costs should be included in estimating cost of a teacher for the basic program? • Should state appropriations be used to help fund salaries or employer contributions for local district decisions above the basic program? • What types of expenses are state, state and local, or local? • What services can or should be shared and how can the state identify and encourage best practices for providing district services? • What spending flexibility should districts have with regard to budgeted expenditures? • To which specific education categories should Property Tax Relief funds be allocated? • Under this model, funding for the additional EFA add-on weights will be reallocated in the following manner: o Poverty – lower class size o Should other current EFA add-ons be addressed? If so, how should these services be measured and allocated? (Other current add-ons: Academic Assistance, Gifted and Talented, Limited English Proficiency, and Dual Credit Enrollment) • Is dual-credit enrollment a public education or a technical college expense?
III. Accountability, Flexibility, and Transparency • What are the accountability expectations of the stakeholders? • How much flexibility should be given regarding state funding? • What is the timing for implementation of modifications to accounting systems and reporting given the substantial changes under consideration?
IV. Competitive Workforce for Teachers • What is an appropriate measure for determining a competitive wage for teachers compared to other professions? Total salary, salary per day, average hourly wage?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 94
• Should the state minimum salary schedule be extended beyond twenty-three years? How many years? • The current state minimum salary schedule has different salaries based upon level of education. The salary difference between the lowest and highest classes is forty percent, while years of experience is not weighted as heavily. Is the difference in salary schedule among class of teachers acceptable or does it need to be adjusted? • What occupational wage categories, other than the average state wage, should be used for comparing average teacher salaries in SC? • Should options be included to address potential costs for changes to working conditions, such as more planning or free time?
V. Consolidation of Districts • What other types of analysis of district consolidation should be conducted?
VI. Long-term Focus • What other factors should be considered in long-term planning for education? • What is the priority order for implementing any changes to funding among equity, teacher salaries, classroom size, or other goals?
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE – MAY 9, 2019 PAGE 95
Other Appendix Items
S.C. REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE –MAY 9, 2019
(e) Options for standards or measures of fiscal accountability for funding categories as recommended by the South Carolina Department of Education and options for standards or measures of student performance accountability as recommended by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee; and
The South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC) recognizes that the statutory objective of the state’s public education is ensure that all children have the opportunity to graduate with the knowledge, skills and characteristics to be college, career and civic ready as defined in the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate pursuant to Section 59-1- 50 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. Measuring whether our state, school districts and schools are provided the opportunity with the financial resources provided will require establishing metrics and goals at the state, district and school levels.
The following are metrics that the Governor and General Assembly should consider in establishing a student performance accountability system. The metrics are based upon the existing accountability system that evaluates the performance of our public education system using multiple indicators as required by both federal and state laws. The metrics also include those specifically identified in Section 59-18-1950 of the South Carolina Code of Laws enacted with Act 94 (H.3969) of 2017. Furthermore, all metrics, where available, should be disaggregated by race, socioeconomic status, and other subgroups such as students with disabilities and English language learners to ensure that South Carolina is addressing the educational needs of all students.
At the state and district levels, the metrics focus on the goal of creating a 21st century workforce. At the school level (primary, elementary, middle, and high schools), the EOC would recommend evaluating school performance against the same indicators reported on the annual school report cards. These indicators focus on preparing students with the skills and opportunities to succeed in a 21st century economy. While the state currently collects financial data at the district level, the EOC acknowledges that a financial data system at the school-level must be created. The EOC cannot overemphasize the importance of having financial data at the school level where accountability for student performance can be best measured.
Metrics for Student Performance at:
State Level: Percentage of five-year-olds entering public kindergarten ready to learn; Percentage of 3rd, 5th, and 8th graders who are meeting or exceeding grade-level standards in English language arts (ELA).reading and mathematics based on state summative assessments; Percentage of 4th and 8th graders scoring Proficient and above and scoring Basic and above on reading and mathematics as documented by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); Percentage of students graduating from public high schools who enter postsecondary education without the need for remediation; Percentage of working-aged adults by county who possess a postsecondary degree or industry credential; and Percentage of high school graduates who are gainfully employed in the State within five and ten years of graduating from high school.
School District Level: Percentage of 3rd, 5th, and 8th graders who are meeting or exceeding grade-level standards in ELA/reading and mathematics based on state summative assessments; Percentage of students graduating within four years; Percentage of students graduating within four years who are deemed college or career ready; Percentage of students graduating who enter postsecondary education without the need for remediation; and Percentage of high school graduates who are gainfully employed in the State within five and ten years of graduating from high school.
School Level: Academic Achievement or the percentage of students at or above grade level in ELA//reading and mathematics as measured by summative assessments, end-of- course assessments, or other valid and reliable measures; Student Progress or the academic growth of students in ELA/reading and mathematics; Graduation Rate or the percentage of students graduating on-time; College/Career Readiness or the percentage of high school graduates deemed college or career ready; Percentage of students graduating who enter postsecondary education without the need for remediation; and Percentage of high school graduates who are gainfully employed in the State within five and ten years of graduating from high school.
Furthermore, the EOC would encourage policymakers to consider the work of the Maryland Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, commonly referred to as the Kirwan Commission.1 After three years of discussion and analysis, the Kirwan Commission issued in January of 2019 its Interim Report containing policy and funding recommendations to address the quality, access and effectiveness of the state’s preK-12 education with a focus on transforming the formula for school funding. The objective of the Kirwan Commission was to ensure that “every student in Maryland should have access to educational experiences and opportunities that enable them to reach their full potential and be ready for success in college and a rewarding career by the end of high school.”
The Kirwan Commission addressed governance and accountability. The Commission noted that “how funds for education are spent is at least as important as how much is spent in determining student achievement and funding equity.” To this objective the Commission recommended the creation of an Independent Oversight Board with authority to develop a comprehensive plan to implement the Commission’s recommendations. Currently, the Maryland General Assembly is debating Senate Bill 1030 to codify many of the recommendations of the Commission, including the creation of the Maryland Office of the Inspector General of Education.
And, in collecting school-level financial data, the EOC would recommend reviewing the school funding reports published by the Texas Education Agency. At the school-level, information is collected and reported at three levels: (1) the object level by payroll, other operating and equipment/supplies; (2) the function level by instruction, curriculum/staff development, health services, guidance/counseling, food, etc.; and (3) the program or student classification level such as regular, gifted and talented, career and technical, students with disabilities, etc.
1 Interim Report. Maryland Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education. January 2019. http://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/NoPblTabMtg/CmsnInnovEduc/2019-Interim-Report-of-the-Commission.pdf.
[PRERELEASE] Draft Research Report
The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce
Teacher Education Requirements and Professional Development Opportunities
Celia J. Gomez, Anamarie A. Whitaker, Lynn A. Karoly
RAND Education and Labor
RR-2944-SCEOC May 2019 Prepared for South Carolina Education Oversight Committee
PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. [DATE: MAY 23, 2019] This document has been formally reviewed and edited, but not proofread or finalized for open publication. The final published version will be available on RAND’s website at https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2944.html
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Preface
The South Carolina Child Early Reading Development and Education Program (CERDEP) is a state-funded full-day four-year-old prekindergarten (4K) program for children at risk of not being ready to start kindergarten. Eligible children include those who live in districts with a score of 70 percent or higher on the state poverty index and whose family income is at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or those eligible for Medicaid. The program is implemented using a mixed-delivery system, with both public school districts and licensed private center–based providers able to serve eligible children. In the 2017–2018 school year, the program funded about 11,700 children, with more than 80 percent of children attending classrooms in public schools. As part of an ongoing commitment by the South Carolina legislature to evaluate aspects of CERDEP, the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC) contracted with the RAND Corporation to address questions related to per-pupil costs, teacher education, and teacher professional development. The focus of this report is the second and third topics: teacher education and professional development. We address two sets of research questions. First, we explore the distribution of teacher education levels and examine the relationship between teacher education levels and child outcomes. The study questions include: • What was the distribution of education levels among CERDEP teachers in the 2017–2018 school year? • Among children who attended private CERDEP providers in the 2017–2018 school year, what were the language and literacy outcomes of children in providers where all teachers had a bachelor’s degree (BA), compared with children who attended providers where some or no teachers had a BA? Through the second set of study questions, we document the in-service professional development opportunities available to CERDEP teachers in the 2017–2018 school year. The questions include: • What professional development opportunities were offered to CERDEP educators, including lead teachers and instructional assistants, in the 2017–2018 school year? How frequently were the activities offered (e.g., on a rolling basis, as needed, annually)? In which opportunities did educators participate? What content was offered and how were the trainings delivered?
iii
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
• To what extent did professional development activities differ between public school districts and private CERDEP providers? To what extent did activities or opportunities vary within public or private CERDEP providers? • What systems are used to track the teacher professional development opportunities available to CERDEP providers? A companion report on per-pupil costs for the CERDEP program is also available. See Lynn A. Karoly and Celia J. Gomez, Cost Analysis of the South Carolina Child Early Reading and Development Education Program, RR-2906, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 2019. This study will be of interest to the policymakers and practitioners associated with CERDEP, as well as those interested more generally in credentials and professional development for the early care and education workforce. This study was undertaken by RAND Education and Labor, a division of the RAND Corporation that conducts research on early childhood through postsecondary education programs, workforce development, and programs and policies affecting workers, entrepreneurship, financial literacy, and decisionmaking. More information about RAND can be found at www.rand.org. Questions about this report should be directed to [email protected], and questions about RAND Education and Labor should be directed to [email protected].
iv
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Table of Contents
Preface ...... iii Figures ...... vii Tables ...... ix Summary ...... xi Acknowledgments ...... xxv Abbreviations ...... xxvii 1. Introduction ...... 1 Background on South Carolina CERDEP ...... 2 ECE Workforce Professional Development Systems ...... 4 CERDEP Teachers’ Education Levels: Study Questions, Data Sources, and Methods ...... 5 CERDEP In-Service Professional Development: Study Questions, Data Sources, and Methods ...... 9 Roadmap for the Report ...... 11 2. CERDEP Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes ...... 13 Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes in the Early Childhood Field ...... 13 Teacher Education Credentialing Requirement in CERDEP and Other State-Funded PreK Programs . 15 Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes in CERDEP ...... 18 3. Professional Development for CERDEP Teachers ...... 25 Professional Development for ECE Practitioners ...... 25 Professional Development Requirements in State-Funded 4K Programs Systems ...... 29 CERDEP Professional Development Requirements and Offerings ...... 33 Professional Development Offerings for CERDEP Teachers in Public School Districts ...... 34 Professional Development Offerings for CERDEP Teachers in Private Providers ...... 36 Comparing Professional Development Opportunities for Public and Private CERDEP Providers ...... 39 Professional Development Tracking and Documentation in CERDEP ...... 42 CERDEP Professional Development and Best Practices in the Field ...... 44 4. Key Findings and Policy Recommendations ...... 47 Key Findings ...... 47 Policy Recommendations and Considerations ...... 48 Appendix A. CERDEP History and Program Features ...... 55 Appendix B: Technical Methods Details for Chapter 2 ...... 63 Appendix C: Comparing CERDEP Children Across Public and Private Settings ...... 79 Appendix D: CERDEP Professional Development Key Informant Interview Protocol ...... 87 References ...... 89
v RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce RR-2944 [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Figures
Figure S.1. Distribution of Lead Teacher Education Level for CERDEP Public School Districts and Private Providers ...... xv
vii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Tables
Table S.1. Summary of Professional Development Offerings for Public and Private CERDEP Providers ...... xviii Table S.2. Summary of CERDEP’s Alignment with Best Practice in Professional Development ...... xx Table 2.1. Education Requirements for Lead and Assistant Teachers in State 4K Programs ...... 17 Table 2.2. Distribution of Education Level for CERDEP Lead Teachers: By Provider Type ...... 18 Table 2.3. Distribution of Private Providers and Children by Share of CERDEP Teachers with a BA: Full and Analytic Samples ...... 19 Table 2.4. Children’s End of 4K B3–GOLD Language and Literacy Scores for the Analytic Sample of Children in Private Providers by Provider Teacher Education Category ...... 21 Table 3.1. Teacher Professional Development Requirements and Features in State-Funded 4K Programs ...... 29 Table 3.2. Summary of Professional Development Offerings for Public and Private CERDEP Providers ...... 40 Table 3.3. Summary of CERDEP’s Alignment with Best Practices in Professional Development ...... 44 Table A.1. CERDEP Features in Private and Public Providers, and Corresponding NIEER Quality Benchmarks ...... 57 Table A.2. CERDEP Service Options for Participating Districts and Private Providers in 2017– 2018 ...... 59 Table A.3. Funded CERDEP Slots in the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 School Years by Provider Type ...... 61 Table B.1 Descriptive Statistics for the Child and Provider Characteristics for the Analytic Sample and by Each Provider-Level Teacher Education Category ...... 64 Table B.2. Beginning-of-Year B3–GOLD Scaled Scores and WHE Scores for the Total Analytic Sample, By Provider-Level Teacher Education Category ...... 68 Table B.3. End-of-Year B3–GOLD Scaled Scores and WHE Scores for the Total Analytic Sample, By Provider-Level Teacher Education Category ...... 69 Table B.4. Linear Probability Models: Meets or Exceeds Expectations for B3–GOLD Language ...... 72 Table B.5. Linear Probability Models: Meets or Exceeds Expectations for B3–GOLD Literacy 75 Table C.1. Demographic Characteristics of 4K Children in CERDEP Public School Districts and Private Provider CERDEP Classrooms ...... 81
ix RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table C.2. Beginning- and End-of-Year B3–GOLD WHE Scores for the Analytic Samples of the 4K Children in CERDEP Public School Districts and in Private Provider CERDEP Classrooms ...... 84
x RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Summary
Teacher professional development is a key component in many early care and education (ECE) programs. Indeed, professional development is the primary mechanism through which ECE practitioners build and maintain the skills needed to be effective educators of young children. Professional development is often organized in two categories: 1) preservice activities, or the training educators receive before they enter the classroom; and 2) in-service activities, or the skill development opportunities educators have while they are employed by a provider and actively serving children. Both preservice and in-service opportunities are necessary to develop and retain a high-quality ECE workforce. In this report, we focus on understanding the levels of preservice education requirements, as well as the in-service activities designed for the South Carolina Child Early Reading and Development Education Program (CERDEP) workforce. CERDEP is a state-funded full-day four-year-old prekindergarten (4K) program for low- income children at risk of not being ready to start kindergarten. CERDEP is implemented using a mixed-delivery system, with both public school districts and licensed private center–based providers able to serve eligible children. Oversight of the public school district–based programs is provided by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE), while South Carolina First Steps to School Readiness (First Steps)—the statewide public-private partnership to increase school readiness—oversees implementation in private providers. In the 2017–2018 school year, CERDEP served approximately 11,700 children, most of whom—about 83 percent—attended a CERDEP classroom in a public school district. Like many other state-funded prekindergarten (preK) programs, CERDEP policies detail staff professional preparation and professional development requirements—including the level of education teachers must complete before entering the classroom, as well as the amount of professional development teachers must engage in while employed by a CERDEP provider. We explore both topics in the analyses presented in this report.
Teacher Education Levels: Study Questions and Methods While there is overall agreement that being an ECE teacher involves complex, challenging work, the field has yet to reach a consensus regarding the minimum level of education required for educators who care for young children. The lack of agreement regarding the minimum education level for ECE teachers is evident in CERDEP policy, as the requirements for lead teacher qualifications differ across public school districts and private providers. In the public school districts, all lead teachers are required to have a bachelor’s degree (BA); in the private settings, lead teachers are only required to have a two-year college degree (such as an associate degree [AA]). The teachers in private CERDEP programs who have an AA in ECE or a related xi RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] field are required to be enrolled in a four-year degree program and demonstrate that they are working toward earning a four-year college degree. These teachers are not required to be enrolled in a course at all times, but they must complete a four-year degree within four years of being hired by a CERDEP provider to remain a CERDEP teacher. In this study, we shed light on whether variations in children’s learning outcomes in the CERDEP program are related to differences in their teachers’ education levels. Specifically, we address the following questions: • What was the distribution of education levels among CERDEP teachers in the 2017–2018 school year? • Among children who attended private CERDEP providers in the 2017–2018 school year, what were the language and literacy outcomes of children in providers where all teachers had a BA, compared with children in providers where some or no teachers had a BA? The second question focuses only on teachers and children in private CERDEP programs, because teachers may or may not have a BA in those settings. To address these research questions, we gathered administrative data from SCDE and First Steps on CERDEP teachers’ education levels and provider characteristics; and children’s language and literacy outcomes from the 2017–2018 school year, as measured by the Teaching Strategies® GOLD Birth Through 3rd Grade Assessment (B3–GOLD) at the beginning and end of students’ 4K year. Our analysis includes 61 school districts and the approximately 600 lead teachers within those districts, and 192 private providers and the approximately 200 lead teachers and 2000 children who were employed by or enrolled within the private providers. Because the available data did not identify which classrooms children were enrolled in, we could not match children to their lead teachers, and thus could not compare children whose lead teachers had varying levels of education. Instead, to address the second question, we created a provider-level variable that measures the percentage of teachers in private centers who had a BA. We used statistical analysis to explore whether the children in private CERDEP programs who attended a center where all teachers had a BA were more likely to meet age-level expectations on the B3– GOLD as compared to children who attended centers where only some or no teachers had a BA. The teacher education analyses and associated results have several important limitations. First, we were unable to match children with their lead teacher. Theory suggests that the mechanism through which teachers’ education levels might be related to student outcomes is via direct teacher-child interactions. Our analysis cannot capture the hypothesized pathway between teacher education levels and children’s learning, as we do not know which CERDEP classroom teachers were working with which CERDEP children. Second, the data and research design do not allow for a causal interpretation of the relationship between teacher education levels and child outcomes, making the analyses descriptive in nature.
xii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
In-Service Professional Development: Study Questions and Methods In-service ECE professional development includes different activities and opportunities with various goals and intended outcomes for teachers. For example, teachers may attend a week-long conference or seminar that covers multiple topics and domains, or teachers may engage in such classroom- or school-based activities as coaching or mentoring from instructional leaders. CERDEP regulations require that all teachers receive 15 hours of in-service training annually. Currently, CERDEP’s professional development data systems collect relatively limited information on the activities that teachers engage in. For example, there is no single comprehensive publicly available data source or repository detailing all of the professional development opportunities available to CERDEP teachers in both public school districts and private settings. To fill this gap, we reviewed records of available professional development opportunities across multiple sources to provide a descriptive picture of the opportunities CERDEP educators had access to in the 2017–2018 school year. Further, we explore variation in the professional opportunities offered to teachers in public and private settings. Specifically, we address the following questions: • What professional development opportunities were offered to CERDEP educators, including lead teachers and instructional assistants, in the 2017–2018 school year? How frequently were the activities offered (e.g., on a rolling basis, as needed, annually)? In which opportunities did educators participate? What content was offered and how were the trainings delivered? • To what extent did professional development activities differ between public school districts and private CERDEP providers? To what extent did activities or opportunities vary within public or private CERDEP providers? • What systems are used to track the teacher professional development opportunities available to CERDEP providers? To address these questions, we conducted key informant interviews with staff members at CERDEP-affiliated organizations and agencies—including SCDE Office of Early Learning and Literacy (OELL), First Steps, and the South Carolina Center for Child Care Career Development (CCCCD)—to better understand the professional development opportunities offered to CERDEP teachers. To gather additional factual information on the CERDEP program, we conducted a thorough document review of CERDEP policies and procedures, professional development descriptions, CERDEP annual reports, and other documents relevant to the program. We compiled information from the documents and key stakeholder interviews to provide an overview of CERDEP professional development. The ideal data to address our questions regarding CERDEP professional development opportunities and participation would also include teacher-level records documenting the specific professional development activities they participated in, total hours of participation, and the content of each activity. However, these data were not available for the purposes of this study; xiii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] thus, this report does not provide specific figures on teacher participation or a comparison of the number or nature of professional development opportunities teachers across settings received.
Key Findings Our findings are organized by the two main topics of the report—teacher education levels and in-service professional development—and summarized in the text box that follows.
Key Findings Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes Approximately 64 percent of teachers in private CERDEP providers had a BA or higher in the 2017–2018 school year. The remaining 36 percent of teachers, who reported having an AA, were required to be enrolled in a four-year college degree program. Seventy percent of children in private settings attended centers where some or all teachers had a BA, and approximately 94 percent of all CERDEP children, across public and private settings, were enrolled in a classroom with a BA-level teacher. There were no statistically significant differences in children’s B3–GOLD language and literacy outcomes at the end of 4K when comparing children who attended private providers where all teachers had a BA with children who attended private centers where some or no teachers had a BA. Children who attended private providers where all teachers had a BA were equally as likely to meet or exceed age-level expectations on the B3–GOLD language and literacy assessments as children who attended private providers where only some or no teachers had a BA. In-Service Teacher Professional Development Opportunities The professional development opportunities offered to private providers by First Steps and to public providers by OELL are largely delivered separately. First Steps and OELL do not collaborate at a systems level to uniformly offer joint or shared professional development opportunities for providers from the two different settings. Like most ECE settings, both OELL and First Steps offered a number of individual workshop-style trainings on a range of overlapping topics, including high-quality language and literacy practices, health and safety, child assessments, and parent engagement. Both OELL and First Steps include opportunities for teachers to receive coaching. However, the coaching models and dosage differed across the two settings. Teachers in both public and private settings had autonomy over how they completed the mandatory 15 hours of professional development; there was variability among all teachers’ experiences. Due to the high level of local control CERDEP public school districts had in administering district-specific trainings for their educators, there may have been more variation in the training and workshop experiences among teachers in public settings compared with teachers in private settings. The South Carolina Center for Child Care Career Development provides the primary system by which CERDEP teachers track their participation in professional development. The system does not currently function as a workforce registry. CERDEP’s professional development offerings meet some, but not all of the best-regarded practices in ECE professional development.
xiv RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
CERDEP Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes To provide context for CERDEP’s teacher education level policies, we reviewed the teacher education requirements of state-funded 4K programs in nine neighboring states. Indeed, South Carolina’s varying credentialing requirements across private and public settings are fairly unique among the reviewed states. Although almost all of the 4K programs we reviewed were implemented with a mixed-delivery system, eight of the states reviewed had the same teacher educational requirement for all settings in which the preK programs were offered (according to National Institute for Early Education Research’s [NIEER] report on state preK programs from the 2016–2017 school year). Virginia was the only other state where teachers in private settings had a lower degree requirement (a high school degree) than teachers in public school settings (a BA). Despite the fact that only an AA was required, most teachers working in private CERDEP providers had completed a four-year college degree. As detailed in Figure S.1, approximately two-thirds (64 percent) of teachers in private CERDEP providers had a BA or higher in the 2017–2018 school year. Most of these teachers had a BA only, with a small percentage (approximately 12 percent of the total) having earned a master’s, doctoral, or professional degree. The remaining 36 percent of teachers met the CERDEP teacher education requirement
Figure S.1. Distribution of Lead Teacher Education Level for CERDEP Public School Districts and Private Providers
100 11.9
80 54.3
60 52.1
40
20 45.7
Percentage of lead teachers 36.0
0 Public School Districts Private Providers
Associate degree Bachelor’s degree Master's, doctoral, or professional degree
SOURCE: Public school district data as reported in SCDE (2018a); authors’ analysis of First Steps administrative data (2017–2018). NOTE: There are 211 CERDEP teachers working in private providers and 599 CERDEP teachers working in public school districts.
xv RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] with an AA. By contrast, and by design, the distribution of teacher education levels in the public school districts looks somewhat different. One hundred percent of teachers in the public districts had a BA or higher, as dictated by program policy, with slightly over 50 percent of teachers having a master’s, professional, or doctoral degree. Because the available data did not allow us to match children to individual lead classroom teachers within private providers, we examined the percentage of CERDEP lead teachers with a BA or higher degree at each of the private providers. Specifically, we assigned private CERDEP providers to one of the three categories: 1) providers where all CERDEP teachers had a BA; 2) providers where some teachers had a BA; and 3) providers where no CERDEP teachers had a BA. The majority of CERDEP private providers (64 percent) and CERDEP children (70 percent) fell into the first two categories. For approximately 36 percent of private providers, no CERDEP teachers had a BA; 30 percent of CERDEP children attended these centers. While the remainder of our analyses focus on children who attended private CERDEP center-based providers only, it is important to note that a minority of all CERDEP children were served in private settings in the 2017–2018 school year (17 percent of approximately 11,700 children). Given that all children who attended CERDEP in public school districts were enrolled in a classroom with a BA-level teacher, approximately 94 percent of all CERDEP children across public and private settings were taught by a teacher with a BA. We conducted descriptive and correlational statistical analyses to compare the end-of-year language and literacy outcomes of children in private CERDEP settings who attended centers in the three teacher education–level categories. Although we account for key child characteristics (e.g., children’s scores at the start of the year, child age) and provider characteristics (e.g., measures of center quality), these analyses do not support a causal interpretation of the relationship we examined. The analysis is akin to comparing learning outcomes for children attending providers that were similar on all observed characteristics except for the share of teachers at the center with a BA. These comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in children’s B3–GOLD language and literacy scores based on the share of teachers who had a BA, holding constant the set of child and provider characteristics. Thus, when comparing otherwise similar children in similar centers, children who attended centers where some or all teachers had a BA did not end their 4K year with stronger language or literacy skills than children who attended centers where no teachers had earned a BA.
In-Service Professional Development for CERDEP Teachers CERDEP legislation requires that all teachers complete 15 hours of in-service professional development each school year. To frame our understanding of CERDEP’s offerings, we reviewed the professional development requirement of state-funded 4K programs in nine other neighboring states. CERDEP’s 15-hour-per-year requirement for lead teacher professional development is on par with many neighboring states, and CERDEP was one of only three state
xvi RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] programs we reviewed that meets NIEER’s staff professional development benchmark standard (as reported in NIEER’s annual report). To meet the quality standard, teachers in state preK programs must receive at least 15 hours of professional development per year, some of which must include individualize coaching, and all teachers must have a written, annual individualized professional development plan. However, as detailed further in the report, CERDEP’s coaching services may not have reached all teachers. As a result, it is not clear that all teachers’ professional development experiences in the 2017–2018 school year met the NIEER standards. In addition, South Carolina is one of only three states (among the ten we reviewed) without an ECE workforce registry to track teacher education, professional development offerings, and professional development participation in one comprehensive system. Both SCDE and First Steps reported that in the 2017–2018 school year, 100 percent of CERDEP teachers met the 15-hour-per-year professional development requirement and received training under the domains required by CERDEP guidelines (e.g. child growth and development, teaching emergent literacy). For CERDEP teachers in public school districts, OELL was responsible for teachers’ professional development and provided various professional learning opportunities (PLO) to educators throughout the school year. Additionally, individual districts had the freedom to offer district-specific professional development for their staff. First Steps provided professional development opportunities for CERDEP teachers working in private providers. Based on our review, the professional development opportunities offered to public providers by OELL and to private providers by First Steps were largely separate. There were some opportunities for teachers from both public and private settings to receive professional development together; however, OELL and First Steps did not to collaborate on a systems level to offer joint professional development sessions.
Comparing Opportunities in Public School Districts and Private Settings Teachers in public and private CERDEP settings had access to many different professional development opportunities to meet the 15-hour requirement. Our review of the available professional development opportunities focused on three different kinds of professional development activities that are common in ECE programs: 1) non-credit bearing workshops, 2) coaching or mentoring, and 3) credit-bearing coursework. In Table S.1, and in the following discussion, we summarize the available opportunities for teachers in public school districts and private settings. Workshops. Our review indicated that, like most ECE settings, the majority of the professional opportunities offered to CERDEP teachers in private and public settings were non– credit bearing workshops. For example, First Steps organized a four-day academy for all 4K teachers at the start of the school year, with many different workshop-style trainings. Similarly, OELL organized many state and region workshops for teachers in public school districts. Both First Steps- and OELL-provided workshops focused on many different topics, such as educators’
xvii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] ability to implement high quality language and literacy practices, ECE curriculum, child assessments, South Carolina’s Early Learning Standards, health and safety, and parent
Table S.1. Summary of Professional Development Offerings for Public and Private CERDEP Providers
Professional Development Features Public School Districts Private Providers Primary organizations offering • OELL • First Steps professional development • Individual districts • State ECE conferences • State ECE conferences Workshops and trainings • Offered throughout the year • Offered throughout the year on many topics on many topics Coaching and mentoring • Coaching offered; focused on • Coaching offered: used the ELLCO BLOOM framework • OELL offered coaching once • First Steps offered twice annually to some staff only monthly • Access to school-based literacy coaches Credit-bearing courses • Not officially part of offerings • Not officially part of offerings • An estimated 36 percent of all lead teachers (who only had an AA) were required to be working toward a four-year college degree NOTE: BLOOM = Building Learner Outcomes through Opportunities and Models. SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of CERDEP documents and key informant interviews. engagement. However, due to lack of data on the specific content of these professional development offerings, it is not clear how comparable the content or delivery is across trainings for teachers in public and private settings. Coaching and Mentoring. Both public and private CERDEP providers had access to coaching and mentoring opportunities in the 2017–2018 school year. Staff from OELL and First Steps engaged in quality monitoring and coaching visits with public and private providers, respectively. In public settings, the OELL coaching visits were guided by a language and literacy classroom observation tool and focused on creating plans and goals to improve teachers’ practice. The visits happened once annually, and not all classrooms received a visit each year. All public schools also employed literacy coaches who may have worked with CERDEP teachers on their classroom practice. In the private setting, First Steps regional coordinators used the BLOOM plan, a framework to guide the coaching sessions and reflective practice with private CERDEP providers. The sessions focused on goal setting and reflective practice. First Steps visits were intended to take place twice monthly at all centers, though this desired number of visits may not always be achieved.
xviii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Credit-bearing courses. Based on our review, credit-bearing courses were not part of the official professional development offerings by OELL or First Steps. However, all teachers with CERDEP private providers who did not have a BA were required to be working toward a four- year degree (though enrollment in coursework in every term was not required). Our analyses suggest that 36 percent of CERDEP teachers in the private providers did not have BA. Given the policy, some of these teachers may have been enrolled in credit-bearing coursework in the 2017– 2018 school year, as they worked toward a four-year degree. First Steps regional coordinators keep records of AA-level teachers’ post-secondary progress. However, this information is not stored centrally, and thus we could not document which teachers were enrolled in coursework, or what types of courses they were engaged in.
Professional Development Tracking and Data The statewide South Carolina Center for Child Care Career Development (CCCCD, or the center) provides the primary system by which CERDEP teachers track their participation in professional development. The online system allows teachers to record participation in CCCCD- approved training, and print out individual transcripts to document their professional development hours. The system does not function as an ECE workforce registry, and therefore does not keep information on teacher education (beyond teachers’ receipt of state-specific ECE credentials) or employment. In addition, the database was primarily designed to produce teacher transcripts and document teachers’ professional development hours.
CERDEP and Best Practices in Professional Development We concluded our review by comparing CERDEP professional development opportunities to six agreed upon, research-based features of effective ECE professional development (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). As listed in Table S.2, CERDEP’s professional development opportunities met some of these best practices, including the opportunity for teachers to engage in one-on-one coaching, and activities that build educators’ skills to conduct child assessments (features two and five). In other areas—the degree to which professional development experiences were aligned with educator goals and the extent to which state standards were used to ensure consistency (features four and six)—the best practices were somewhat met, but with room for improvement. There were insufficient data on the content of CERDEP professional development sessions to determine whether opportunities were instructionally specific (feature one). Similarly, our review suggests that teachers from the same center or classroom likely participated in shared professional development (the third feature), but the lack of teacher-level data on participation in professional development opportunities did not allow for confirmation of this point. We used this assessment to inform our policy recommendations.
xix RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table S.2. Summary of CERDEP’s Alignment with Best Practice in Professional Development
Met by Professional Development Feature CERDEP
1. Professional development opportunities are content or instructionally specific Unable to determine
2. Teachers are provided with individualized training or coaching Met
3. Teachers within the same classroom or center participate in the same professional Likely met development opportunities
4. Intensity and duration of opportunities matter, and should be aligned with Somewhat professional development goals met
5. Professional development opportunities are aligned with educators’ ability to conduct Met child assessments in the appropriate domains
6. State or other organizational standards should be considered when designing Somewhat professional development opportunities met
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education (2010); authors’ analysis of CERDEP documents and key informant interviews.
Policy Recommendations The findings associated with both sets of study questions raised a number of policy issues regarding requirements for CERDEP teacher education levels and in-service professional development opportunities. In this final section, we offer a series of interrelated policy recommendations. These recommendations pertain to key components of an ECE workforce professional-development system. Professional development systems are made up of the organizations, services, infrastructure, and supports that help to ensure that members of the ECE workforce develop and maintain their skills. These systems, typically at the state level, include the higher education institutions that train preservice teachers, as well as the organizations that provide ongoing in-service training. Systems often function across multiple sectors, supporting educators in different ECE settings (e.g., Head Start, preK programs in public school districts) as well as services administered by faith-based organizations, family child care homes, and other private ECE providers. Prior research has indicated the four key features of an effective professional development system: 1) attention toward defining competencies, establishing teachers’ credentials, and developing a career ladder; 2) outreach and access to professional development opportunities; 3) data systems and other infrastructure supports; and 4) financial incentives and resources. A complete review of the components of South Carolina’s ECE workforce professional- development system was outside of the scope of this report. However, our recommendations for xx RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
CERDEP related to teacher education and professional learning opportunities are relevant for advancing several of the key features of a statewide ECE workforce professional development system.
Recommendation 1: Convene CERDEP stakeholders to discuss teacher education requirements. The SCDE and First Steps should hold one or more convenings with key CERDEP stakeholders to discuss teacher education requirements and the tradeoffs that would result raising the requirement to a BA for all teachers in both public and private providers. Discussions should take into account that in the 2017–2018 school year, the majority of teachers in private settings had already earned a BA, 70 percent of children served in private settings attended a provider where at least one teacher had a BA, and over 90 percent of all CERDEP children across settings were taught by a BA-level teacher. Stakeholders should consider the weak relationship between teacher education and child outcomes, as well as the current movement in the field to professionalize the CERDEP workforce through increasing teachers’ education requirements. Changing the teacher education requirement may have implications for multiple aspects of the ECE workforce professional-development system. For example, if all teachers must earn a BA prior to working in CERDEP classrooms, there may be more demand for BA degree programs in ECE. In addition, stakeholders should consider the associated costs of changing teachers’ education requirements. As indicated in the companion CERDEP report, programs that require teachers to have a BA typically cost more, in part due to the higher teacher salaries required for more highly trained teachers.
Recommendation 2. Build on CCCCD’s current database to establish a comprehensive statewide workforce registry system. CCCCD offers the beginning of a comprehensive data system. South Carolina can potentially build on this existing structure to collect more information on teacher education and professional development. An initial step toward such a system would involve convening stakeholders from across the South Carolina ECE landscape to discuss the need for and goals of a potential statewide data system for all ECE providers. Stakeholders may consider designing a statewide ECE workforce registry that tracks multiple teacher characteristics, including teacher education levels, degrees and credentials, employment history, and teacher participation in in-service professional development (including workshops, training, coaching, and credit-bearing courses). The registry can also act as a repository for descriptions of professional development opportunities offered throughout the state, to indicate which offerings can count toward the annual requirement, and to certify the trainers, coaches, and mentors who deliver them. Establishing such a system would allow CERDEP and state preschool leaders to see where gaps
xxi RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] may exist in professional development opportunities, to ensure teachers and directors are meeting education requirements, and to determine if certain patterns emerge around professional development, teacher or director education, or other key provider characteristics. Indeed, representatives from CCCCD indicated that plans for a statewide early childhood professional registry are in place, with the goal of tracking much of the information described here, including employment, credentials and degrees obtained, and professional development hours. Creating a statewide registry would be an important step toward creating a comprehensive data resource for the state ECE workforce professional development system.
Recommendation 3. Provide specific professional development guidelines and develop a set of common competencies all CERDEP teachers must master in both public and private settings. Plan more shared professional development offerings to ensure that professional development content is consistent across private and public CERDEP providers. In order to ensure that providers are receiving consistent content, quantity, and intensity of professional development offerings, CERDEP stakeholders should consider implementing more- specific guidelines or requirements that specify exactly what a professional development activity should entail. For example, instead of providing broad professional development content areas in CERDEP legislation, such as child development and curricula in general, the state could require professional development in more specific areas, such as the CERDEP-approved early childhood curricula, and require a specific quantity aligned with the importance or complexity of the topic. The professional development guidelines should also include or be developed alongside a core set of skills and competencies that all CERDEP teachers need. Clearly defined competencies are a key component of a professional development system, and will ensure that teachers have the skills needed to be effective educators of young children. CERDEP professional development opportunities can then be designed to help teachers develop and maintain these skills. Further, OELL and SCDE should consider forming local or regional partnerships to offer shared professional development opportunities for teachers from public and private settings. Doing so would help to ensure that regardless of the setting, all CERDEP teachers would have a similar set of competencies and skills. In 2019, South Carolina was awarded a Preschool Development Grant from the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Plans for the grant include more collaborative ECE professional development across CERDEP settings and other ECE programs in the state.
Recommendation 4: Work to provide more sustained and long-term professional development opportunities. Some of the professional opportunities First Steps and OELL provided were one-time or discrete professional development workshops. Stakeholders should work to provide more long-
xxii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] term and sustained professional development opportunities that allow teachers to build new skills over time. OELL and First Steps might consider employing evidence-based professional development interventions that combine multiple forms of support—such as trainings, coaching, and peer networks—into one aligned model over the course of a full school year. These sorts of interventions may increase the quality of the learning opportunities teachers have access to in the professional development system, and might be more likely to have a positive effect on teacher practices and classroom quality.
Recommendation 5. Document CERDEP providers’ receipt of coaching to ensure all teachers receive individualized support. Coaching can be an effective professional learning support offered as part of an ECE workforce professional development system. While both OELL and First Step implemented coaching as part of their professional development offerings, limited data exist on the amount of coaching support teachers received, such as the number of visits or hours of coaching received. Currently, coaching dosage likely varied between public and private settings, and across teachers within settings. CERDEP stakeholders should consider setting a standard coaching dosage for all CERDEP teachers, and track coaching hours to ensure all teachers receive adequate support.
xxiii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Bunnie Ward and Melanie Barton at the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee for their support and partnership throughout this project; they provided valued advice and feedback on many aspects of the study design and helped to document features of CERDEP. Additionally, we would like to thank leaders at South Carolina First Steps to School Readiness, the South Carolina Department of Education, and the South Carolina Center for Child Care Career Development for speaking to us in key informant interviews and providing valuable documents for us to review, and the administrative data we analyzed. Researchers at the University of South Carolina, including Christine DiStefano and Jin Liu offered their guidance and expertise on the South Carolina Department of Education administrative datasets; we thank them for their time. At RAND, we benefited from the research assistance of Mark Barrett. The RAND Education and Labor Division review process employs two peer reviewers, including at least one external to RAND. For this report, we benefited from the thorough and constructive reviews Christine DiStefano of the University of South Carolina Fund and Kathleen Ziol-Guest of RAND. We also appreciate the editing and document production support of Rachel Ostrow and Monette Velasco, respectively.
xxv RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Abbreviations
3K state-funded three-year-old prekindergarten 4K state-funded full-day four-year-old prekindergarten ACS American Community Survey AA associate degree of arts or science B3–GOLD Teaching Strategies® GOLD Birth Through 3rd Grade Assessment BA bachelor’s degree of arts or science BLOOM Building Learner Outcomes through Opportunities and Models BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics CCCCD South Carolina Center for Child Care Career Development CCDF Child Care and Development Fund CDA Child Development Associate (credential) CDEPP Child Development Education Pilot Program CERDEP Child Early Reading Development and Education Program CQI continuous quality improvement DECAL Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning DSS Department of Social Services ECE early care and education ECD101 Early Childhood Development 101 course ELLCO Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation EOC Education Oversight Committee EIA Education Improvement Act First Steps South Carolina First Steps GaPDS Georgia Professional Development System HSD high school diploma IEP individual education plan
xxvii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
K–12 kindergarten through 12th grade LEP limited English proficiency MMCI Making the Most of Classroom Interactions MTP My Teaching PartnerTM NASEM National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine NAEYC National Association for the Education of Young Children NIEER National Institute for Early Education Research OELL South Carolina Department of Education Office of Early Learning and Literacy OLLI Online Library Learning Initiative preK prekindergarten, more generally, for three- and four-year old children PD professional development PDG B–5 Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five PLO professional learning opportunity QRIS quality rating and improvement system SCDE South Carolina Department of Education SpEd special education SC Voucher South Carolina Voucher program USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture WHE widely held expectation
xxviii RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] 1. Introduction
Advances in developmental science indicate that children begin learning at birth and their development in the early years (birth to age eight) is both “rapid and cumulative” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2015, p. 1). Said differently, young children acquire new skills and abilities all the time and their early development serves as the foundation upon which future learning is built. Armed with this science, public sector investments in early care and education (ECE) services have grown as one way to support children’s healthy development (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018). The educators who care for children in these settings play an important role by creating the learning environments that promote children’s development. Further, research indicates that consistent relationships with caring, responsive adults—such as teachers in ECE classrooms—are necessary for young children as they navigate the world (Shonkoff, Boyce, and McEwen, 2009). As a result, there has been a renewed call among federal, state, and local ECE stakeholders to ensure that the ECE workforce has the skills needed to be effective educators of young children. Professional development opportunities are the primary mechanism through which ECE practitioners build and maintain these skills (NASEM, 2015; Whitebook and McLean, 2017; McCarthy and Lowenberg, 2017). In this report, we focus on the education requirements and professional development activities available to the classroom staff in the South Carolina Child Early Reading and Development Education Program (CERDEP). CERDEP is a state-funded full-day four-year-old prekindergarten (4K)1 program for low-income children at risk of not being ready to start kindergarten (South Carolina Department of Education, undated-b). CERDEP began in the 2006–2007 school year as a pilot program, in response to a court decision concerning the equity of the state school funding formula. The program is implemented using a mixed-delivery system, with both public school districts and licensed private center–based providers able to serve eligible children. In the 2017–2018 school year, the focus of this report, CERDEP served approximately 11,700 children, or about 33 percent of low-income four-year-old children in the state. Like many other state-funded prekindergarten (preK) programs, CERDEP policies specify staff professional preparation and professional development requirements—including the level of education teachers must complete before entering the classroom, as well as the amount of
1 We use prekindergarten, or preK, to refer generally to early education programs of various kinds (e.g., state or federally funded programs or private pay programs) for three- and four-year-old children. We use the term 4K to refer exclusively to preK programs for four-year-olds, and 3K to refer to those for three-year-olds. We use the term early care and education (ECE) to refer to educational and care settings for children ages birth to five, and in some cases, children ages birth to eight.
1 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] professional development teachers must engage in while employed by a CERDEP provider. We explore both topics in this report. In the following sections, we first present background information on the CERDEP program. Then, we draw on existing frameworks for ECE workforce professional-development systems to frame our study questions. Next, we discuss our study questions and the data and methods used to address them. The study methods and questions, and the remainder of the report, are organized under the two main topics the guided our inquiry: CERDEP teacher education levels and CERDEP teacher professional development. We conclude the chapter with a roadmap for the remainder of the report.
Background on South Carolina CERDEP CERDEP began as the Child Development Education Pilot Program (CDEPP), a state funded early childhood education program in low-income districts in the state. The pilot program was founded in 2006 in response to a court ruling in a decades-long legal challenge to South Carolina’s public school funding formula. CDEPP was created to remedy the lack of funding for early childhood education in the state’s poorest districts. CDEPP was signed into state law as a permanent program in 2014 (South Carolina General Assembly, 2014) and renamed CERDEP. By law, the program must serve children from low-income families in the state’s poorest districts, and focus on reading and school readiness (South Carolina Department of Education, undated-a). Here we provide a brief overview of CERDEP’s main programmatic characteristics. We draw heavily from the program review presented in the first report in this series (Karoly and Gomez, 2019). A complete overview of CERDEP’s characteristics can be found in Appendix A.2 CERDEP is implemented using a mixed-delivery system, with both public school districts and private center–based providers able to serve eligible children. Oversight of the public school district–based programs is provided by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE), while South Carolina First Steps to School Readiness (First Steps)—the statewide public-private partnership to increase school readiness—oversees implementation in private providers. To be eligible to implement CERDEP, districts must have a score of 70 percent or higher on the state poverty index.3 These CERDEP-eligible districts may opt in or out of establishing CERDEP
2 This section, and Appendix A draws heavily from the following: Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018; South Carolina Education Oversight Committee (EOC), State-Funded Full-Day 4K: Evaluation, Columbia, S.C., 2018; South Carolina EOC, State-Funded Full-Day 4K, Columbia, S.C., 2017; South Carolina Department of Education, 2018a; South Carolina Department of Education, “2018-19 CERDEP Guidelines,” 2018b; South Carolina First Steps, “4K Data Request to EOC,” unpublished, 2018a; and South Carolina First Steps, “South Carolina First Steps 4K Guidelines 2018-19,” Columbia, S.C., 2018b. The content presented here is very similar to that in the companion report (see Karoly and Gomez, 2019). 3 The poverty index is determined by the state’s General Assembly and is calculated based on the percentage of students and families in a specific district, who are enrolled in Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Department of Social Services Foster Care. 2 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] classrooms. Private providers may be located anywhere in the state, including in districts that do not meet the 70 percent poverty threshold. Across both public and private settings, all CERDEP providers are required to be licensed by the Division of Early Care and Education in the South Carolina Department of Social Services. All children served by the program in either public or private settings must live within CERDEP-eligible districts, must have reached age four on or before September 1, and must meet one of the following criteria: (a) have family income at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, or (b) be eligible for Medicaid. Families can choose to apply for a CERDEP slot in either a public school district or a private provider. In the 2017–2018 school year, 64 districts were CERDEP-eligible, and 61 opted into the program—approximately 74 percent of the state’s 82 total districts. Additionally, 197 private providers across the state implemented CERDEP at the start of the school year in 2017–2018 (192 of these centers contributed data to the analyses in Chapter 2). In this school year, CERDEP served approximately 11,700 children. The large majority of children—83 percent—attended a CERDEP classroom in a public school district, with less than 20 percent of children attending classrooms in private providers. Based on recent state estimates, the 11,700 children served by CERDEP represented about 33 percent of all low-income children in the state at the time.4 In both private providers and public school districts, CERDEP program must operate for at least 180 school days, five days a week, with at least 6.5 hours of instruction per day. Starting in 2017–2018 programs had the option of offering extended school-day and school-year program options to offer families additional care; approximately 70 percent of programs offered an extended option in 2017–2018. The requirements for lead teacher qualifications differ across the public and private settings. In the school districts, all lead teachers are required to have a bachelor’s degree (BA). In the private settings, teachers are only required to have a two-year college degree (an associate degree [AA]), in early childhood education, or a two-year college degree in another field with additional early childhood experience (such as having a Child Development Associate [CDA] credential). Once hired, CERDEP requires that all lead teachers complete 15 hours of professional development per school year. In Chapter 3, we will present a detailed review of the teacher professional development activities that teachers had access to in 2017–2018. Eligible families have the choice to apply for a CERDEP slot in either a public school district or private provider. The literature suggests that many different factors influence families’ preK and child care choices (Rose and Elicker, 2008). The children and families who select private providers likely differ from those who select a public school district participating in CERDEP. Some parents may prefer a public school district setting if they have older children already attending school in the district. School districts may also have more resources and services available, e.g., supports for children with special learning needs. Other families may prefer private CERDEP providers. As an example, private settings tend to have longer hours of care
4 Based on estimates of low-income children in the state from EOC (2018). 3 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
(see Karoly and Gomez, 2019); more hours of care may be important for working parents. As noted, the large majority of CERDEP slots are available in public settings, so available space may also factor into a family’s decision. EOC reported in 2017–2018 that some school districts had waitlists of families who had applied for but had not received a CERDEP slot due to space constraints. This data may indicate that there is more demand for slots in public programs than space available. Individual private providers may have had waitlists as well. An investigation into how South Carolina families select private or public school district settings when applying for a CERDEP slot is beyond the scope of this report. However, Appendix C provides a brief description of the demographic characteristics of children across the two settings.
ECE Workforce Professional Development Systems Professional development has multiple definitions and can take on a number of different forms. In this report, we use the following definition put forth by the National Professional Development Center on Inclusion: “Professional development is facilitated teaching and learning experiences that are transactional and designed to support the acquisition of professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions as well as the application of this knowledge in practice” (National Professional Development Center on Inclusion, 2008, p. 2). Professional development activities are often categorized as either preservice or in-service. Preservice professional development, also called professional preparation, refers to the training, degrees, and credentials educators are required to complete prior to taking a classroom position. In-service professional development refers to the activities educators engage in while they are employed by a provider and actively serving children. Research suggests that both preservice and in-service professional development supports are necessary to develop and retain a high-quality ECE workforce (NASEM, 2015; Schilder, 2016). As investments in ECE services have grown, so too have the pre- and in-service professional development requirements and opportunities for ECE educators. The need to better organize, track, and manage educational and training opportunities for practitioners led to the development of professional development systems. Professional development systems are made up of the organizations, services, infrastructure, and supports that help to ensure that members of the ECE workforce develop and maintain their skills. The National Center for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) defines an ECE workforce professional development system as a “comprehensive system of preparation and ongoing development and support for all early childhood education professionals working with and on behalf of young children” (LeMoine, 2008, p. 5). These systems typically include the institutions of higher education that train preservice teachers, as well as the organizations that provide ongoing in-service training (Karoly, 2012). The systems often function across multiple sectors, supporting educators in different ECE settings: Head Start and preK programs in public school districts, and services administered by faith-based organizations, family child care homes, and other private ECE providers. These 4 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] systems not only provide the services and supports to foster educators professional learning, but also include data components to track teachers’ education, training, and credentials (LeMoine, 2008; NAEYC, 2016). Karoly’s (2012, p. 5) review of existing frameworks for ECE workforce professional development systems identified four common components of effective systems: 1. competencies, credentials, and a career ladder to define what ECE professionals are required to know, how they demonstrate that knowledge, and how they advance professionally 2. outreach and access to professional development opportunities, for both formal education and ongoing training, to ensure a diverse ECE workforce 3. data systems and other infrastructure supports to ensure quality 4. the financial incentives and financial resources required to support the system. These four interrelated components offer a broad framework for understanding the key features of a functioning professional development system. The first component suggests that it is necessary for professional development systems to articulate the key competencies ECE educators need, as well as identifying the degrees and credentials that indicate mastery of those skills. It follows that professional development systems must ensure that educators have access to, and are aware of, the opportunities that help them to develop key competencies (component 2). Data systems (component 3) can be used to store information on trainings, workshops, and degree programs, so educators have a central place to search and sign up for professional development opportunities. Data systems are also necessary for tracking educators’ degrees, credentials, and the in-service professional opportunities they take up. And, like any system, an ECE workforce professional-development system cannot function without the resources required to support teachers as they engage in their skill-building, as well as the system infrastructure elements (component 4). In this report, we focus on describing variation in CERDEP teachers’ preservice education levels as well as the in-service activities that they must engage in. These topics cut across the four components of an ECE workforce professional-development system.
CERDEP Teachers’ Education Levels: Study Questions, Data Sources, and Methods In the second chapter of this report, we explore the CERDEP teacher preservice education requirements. Teacher education requirements are related to the first component of ECE workforce professional-development systems: Requiring that teachers have a certain level of preservice training is one way to ensure that educators have a particular set of competencies before entering the classroom. While there is overall agreement in the field that being an ECE teacher involves complex, challenging work, the field has yet to reach a consensus regarding the
5 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] minimum level of education required for educators who care for young children (NASEM, 2015). The research literature yields inconsistent findings regarding whether teachers’ degree attainment is related to classroom quality, teachers’ instructional practices, or the learning outcomes of the children in their care (Early et al., 2007; Schilder, 2016). The literature also suggests that teachers with the same degree—a four-year degree in early childhood education, for example—may have different knowledge and skills, given the large variation in curricula and coursework across degree programs (Schilder, 2016). Despite these limitations in the empirical evidence, it has become more common in recent years for state ECE policies to require preK teachers to have four-year degree (Schilder, 2016). This lack of agreement regarding the minimum education level for ECE teachers is evident in CERDEP policy, as the lead teacher education requirement differs depending on whether a teacher is employed by a public or private CERDEP provider. Teachers employed by licensed private center–based CERDEP providers must have at least a two-year AA in early childhood education or a related field, and show that they are working toward a four-year BA degree.5 CERDEP teachers in public school district programs are required to have a BA. As indicated in our companion CERDEP report, teacher credentialing requirements are not only important when considering classroom quality or children’s learning; these requirements also have implications for provider cost and the financial resources necessary for an effective ECE workforce professional development system (Karoly and Gomez, 2019). Programs that require teachers to have a BA typically cost more, in part due to the higher salaries required for more highly trained teachers. A BA requirement may also increase state-level costs for an ECE workforce professional-development system, to the extent that the public sector subsidizes the cost for the ECE workforce to acquire four-year degrees and the cost to maintain high-quality teacher preparation programs.
Study Questions In this report, we shed light on some of these issues by exploring the teacher degree requirements in the CERDEP program. Specifically, we address the following questions: • What was the distribution of education levels among CERDEP teachers in the 2017–2018 school year? • Among children who attended private CERDEP providers in the 2017–2018 school year, how did children’s language and literacy outcomes in providers where all teachers had a BA compare with those of children who attended providers where only some or no teachers had a BA?
5 For simplicity, we abbreviate a two-year degree with AA and a four-year degree with BA, even though either degree may be in the arts (AA or BA) or in the sciences (AS or BS).
6 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
The second question focuses only on teachers and children in private CERDEP programs because teachers may or may not have a BA in those settings. In CERDEP programs housed in public school districts, all teachers have a BA or higher, leaving no variation to address the question of interest 6.
Data and Methods: Administrative Data, Census Data, and Statistical Analysis To address the first study question, which pertains to teachers’ education level, we gathered administrative data from First Steps and SCDE. First Steps provided provider-level data for private center–based programs with numbers of the lead CERDEP teachers by their highest education level. Provider-level administrative data also contained other program characteristics, including program location, indicators of program quality, and the number of children served in the 2017–2018 school year. SCDE provided summary information from administrative records on the distribution of lead teachers by their highest education level for CERDEP teachers in public school districts at the district level. Using these data, we conducted descriptive analyses to understand the distribution of education levels among CERDEP teachers in both public and private settings. To address the second question, we analyzed child- and provider-level data for private center–based CERDEP programs. All child-level assessment data were stored in a single file managed by SCDE. The file contained information on language and literacy skills and demographic characteristics for all children served in private CERDEP centers in the 2017–2018 school year. As mandated by the CERDEP guidelines, all CERDEP programs assess children’s literacy skills at the beginning and end of their 4K year. First Steps requires all private providers to use Teaching Strategies® GOLD Birth Through 3rd Grade Assessment (B3–GOLD). B3– GOLD is a standardized assessment designed to measure children’s developmental skills. The measure is not a direct assessment of a child’s skills. Rather, teachers rate children’s skill levels using evidence and information gathered during classroom interactions. CERDEP teachers rate children in two of the domains covered by B3–GOLD: (1) language—including children’s ability to listen to and understand verbal language, and use verbal language and other communication skills to express thoughts; and (2) literacy—including children’s phonological awareness, phonics skills, word recognition, alphabet knowledge, print knowledge and use, ability to understand and respond to books and other texts, and writing skills. We make use of the B3– GOLD widely held expectations (WHE) scores which report on whether children fall below, meet, or exceed skill level expectations for their age group (Burts, Baker, and Bickart, 2016). We
6 CERDEP stakeholders may also be interested in comparing the outcomes of children who attended CERDEP in private and public settings. In particular, it maybe be useful to compare children in private settings where all teachers had a BA with children who attended public CERDEP classrooms (where all teachers were required to have BA). Unfortunately, data limitations do not allow for this comparison. However, Appendix C offers insight into these topics by comparing children who attended various 4K programs in CERDEP public school districts with children in private CERDEP settings. 7 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] used dichotomous versions of the language and literacy outcomes, which record whether children met or exceeded expectations or if they fell below expectations. All teachers use the Teaching Strategies online platform to record their ratings; all ratings are then transferred to a central database maintained by SCDE. To examine the relationship between teacher education level and children’s learning in CERDEP private centers, we would ideally be able to match children to the lead teacher in their CERDEP classroom. Theory suggests that the mechanism through which teachers’ education levels might be related to student outcomes is via direct teacher-child interactions (Schilder, 2016). However, the CERDEP child-level data do not include a classroom identifier. Thus, we cannot link children to the education level of the teacher in the classroom where they were enrolled. This inability to match students to their CERDEP teachers is a key limitation of this study. Our analysis cannot capture the hypothesized pathway between teacher education level and children’s learning, as we do not know which CERDEP classroom teachers were working with which CERDEP children. Instead, the child-level administrative data were matched to the provider-level administrative data using the provider name. Our main predictor of interest is a provider-level variable that measures the percentage of the provider’s CERDEP teachers with a BA. We explored whether the children who attended providers with a higher percentage of teachers who had a BA scored higher or lower on the B3–GOLD than children who attended centers with a lower percentage of teachers who had a BA. We also gathered data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to include more information in our statistical models on the neighborhoods of the CERDEP private providers (see Chapter 2 and the Appendix B for more detail). We included variables from the 2017 five-year ACS estimates measured at the zip code–level on such community-level characteristics as the distribution of educational attainment of adults aged 25 or over, the race and ethnic composition of the population, and average family household income. These indicators were matched to the child-level data by provider zip code. Using the child-level data matched to provider characteristics, we used linear probability models to estimate whether there was a relationship between the likelihood of a child meeting or exceeding age-level expectations on the B3–GOLD (versus falling below expectations) and the percentage of CERDEP teachers at private centers with a BA. As we will describe in more detail in Chapter 2, the data and research design do not allow for a causal interpretation of the estimated relationship between teacher education levels and child outcomes. This study is limited to descriptive analyses of the correlations between child outcomes and teacher education levels.
8 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
CERDEP In-Service Professional Development: Study Questions, Data Sources, and Methods In Chapter 3, we explore the in-service professional development opportunities available to CERDEP teachers. In-service professional development is thought to be a cornerstone of high quality preK services (Yoshikawa et al., 2013). In part, because there is variation in the education teachers complete before entering the classroom, in-service professional development is one way to ensure that preK educators develop and maintain a locally agreed-on set of skills needed to promote the learning and development of children in their care (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Indeed, ensuring access to high quality professional development is the second identified component of an effective professional development system. Individual evaluations of professional development interventions indicate that they can have a positive effect on teacher practice and classroom quality (Bowne, Yoshikawa, and Snow, 2016; Dickinson and Caswell, 2007; Early et al., 2017; Landry et al., 2009). However, research suggests that certain types of professional development, such as one-on-one or small-group coaching, or trainings that are long-term, sustained, and instructionally specific, may be more effective than other opportunities, such as stand-alone workshops (Muenchow et al., 2013). As a result, it is important to ensure that ECE professional development opportunities include the features most likely to improve teachers’ practice.
Study Questions CERDEP regulations require that all teachers receive 15 hours of in-service training annually. Currently, CERDEP’s professional development data systems (component three of a professional development system) collect relatively limited information. For example, there is no single comprehensive data source or a repository detailing all of the professional development opportunities available to CERDEP teachers in both public school districts and private center– based settings. To help address this gap, we review records of available professional development offerings across multiple sources to provide a descriptive picture of the opportunities CERDEP educators have access to. Further, we explore variation in the professional opportunities offered to teachers in public and private settings. Specifically, we address the following questions: • What professional development opportunities were offered to CERDEP educators, including lead teachers and instructional assistants, in the 2017–2018 school year? How frequently were the activities offered (e.g., on a rolling basis, as needed, annually)? In which opportunities did educators participate? What content was offered and how were the trainings delivered? • To what extent did professional development activities differ among public school districts and private CERDEP providers? To what extent did activities or opportunities vary within public or private CERDEP providers? 9 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
• What systems are used to track the teacher professional development opportunities available to CERDEP providers? In addition, we compare CERDEP’s current offerings with what the literature suggests are best practices in professional development for 4K teachers, to offer recommendations on what improvements could be made to CERDEP’s current offerings.
Data and Methods: Key Stakeholder Interviews and Document Review The ideal data to address the study questions regarding CERDEP professional development opportunities and participation would include teacher-level data recording the specific professional development activities they participated in, the hours of participation, and the content of each activity. However, these data were not available for purposes of this study. Given these data limitations, we are unable to provide specific figures on participation or a comparison of the number or nature of professional development opportunities CERDEP teachers across settings received. In the absence of data on the professional development experiences of individual teachers, we conducted key informant interviews with staff members at CERDEP-affiliated organizations and agencies—including First Steps, the SCDE Office of Early Learning and Literacy (OELL), and the South Carolina Center for Child Care Career Development—to better understand available professional development opportunities for CERDEP teachers. We conducted four key stakeholder interviews with representatives from CERDEP-affiliated organizations across the state who were knowledgeable about the program and related policies. Interviewees were asked about the types and content of professional development activities (e.g., workshops and coaching), how professional development attendance is tracked, and how meeting the annual requirement is documented (see Appendix D for a copy of the interview protocol). RAND researchers took detailed notes during these interviews, which were then reviewed and summarized for the results presented in this report. In some cases, we engaged in follow-up communication with interviewees to clarify details and obtain further information on professional development opportunities. To gather additional factual information on the CERDEP program, we conducted a thorough document review of CERDEP policies and procedures. Documents reviewed included: • CERDEP guidelines • CERDEP legislation • state agency annual reports • CERDEP evaluation reports • internal memos on professional development opportunities • agency website pages 10 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
• illustrative professional development tracking reports. We compiled information from the documents and key stakeholder interviews to provide a comprehensive overview of CERDEP professional development offerings presented in Chapter 3.
Roadmap for the Report In the next two chapters, we address the study questions. In Chapter 2, we turn to teacher education levels. We review relevant extant literature, compare CERDEP teacher education requirements with other state 4K programs, describe the distribution of teacher education levels in public and private settings, and present results from our descriptive analyses exploring the relationship between teacher education levels and children’s language and literacy outcomes. In Chapter 3, we turn to teacher professional development. We review the literature describing best practices in teacher professional development for ECE teachers, while also describing how other state-funded preK programs train in-service teachers. We then describe the professional development activities CERDEP teachers in public and private settings had access to in the 2017–2018 school year. The final chapter summarizes the key results from the study, identifies important policy implications, and provides a set of recommendations for CERDEP stakeholders.
11 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] 2. CERDEP Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes
In this chapter we focus on the education levels of CERDEP teachers. We address two key questions: • What was the distribution of education levels among CERDEP teachers in the 2017–2018 school year? • Among children who attended private CERDEP providers in the 2017–2018 school year, how did the language and literacy outcomes of children in providers where all teachers had a BA compare with children who attended providers where some or no teachers had a BA? Before presenting findings, we review the literature on the importance of teacher education levels in preK programs and describe the teacher education requirements in other state-funded preK programs.
Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes in the Early Care and Education Field It has become increasingly common for federal, state, and local ECE policies to mandate that teachers in preK and other early education settings have a BA or higher. For example, the 2007 reauthorization of Head Start specified that by 2013, at least 50 percent of Head Start lead teachers would be required to have a BA or higher. In the 2017 program year, over 70 percent of Head Start teachers met this mark (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, 2017). Slightly over half of state-funded preK programs require lead teachers to have a BA (Friedman-Kraus and Kasmin, 2018). In the case of South Carolina, CERDEP does not require all teachers to complete a BA before entering the classroom, though program stakeholders have discussed raising the educational requirement for all teachers. In the larger ECE field, one motivation for increasing the educational requirements for teachers is the emergence of research suggesting a positive relationship between teacher education and classroom quality and child outcomes. This literature, however, does not present consistent findings. Some work indicates that children who had teachers with higher levels of educational attainment—typically teachers with a BA or higher—scored higher on early childhood language and literacy assessments than children whose teachers only had a high school degree or an AA (Zill et al, 2001; Burchinal et al., 2002; Barnett, 2003). However, other works find little robust evidence for this positive relationship. Early et al.’s (2007) work provides one of the most comprehensive investigations of the relationship between ECE teacher education 13 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] levels and child outcomes. The authors used data from seven major studies of preK programs and define teacher education levels in a number of ways—looking across multiple degree-levels (high school degree, an AA, a BA, or a graduate degree), and comparing teachers who had a degree in an ECE field versus teachers whose degrees were in an unrelated field. The large majority of the results from the studies reviewed were null. Although the research design of this paper did not support causal interpretations, the evidence looking across data from multiple studies included in the analysis indicated no relationship between teacher education levels and children’s outcomes (Early et al., 2007). There is more consistent evidence indicating a relationship between teacher education levels and measures of ECE classroom quality. In a recent systematic review, Manning et al. (2019) reported results from 48 different studies, conducted between 1980 and 2015, that investigated the relationship between early childhood teacher qualifications and classroom quality. This study found a positive and statistically significant relationship between teacher qualifications (primarily defined as degree level) and measures of process quality in early childhood environments, e.g., the quality of teacher-child interactions and teachers’ support of peer-to-peer relationships. These correlational findings are consistent with other works that indicate teachers with higher levels of education create more effective learning environments for young children (Kelley and Camilli, 2007; Whitebook, 2003). As noted, the large majority of the studies in this literature are correlational in nature, and do not estimate the causal relationship between teacher education levels and child outcomes or classroom quality. There are a number of selection processes that lead individuals to pursue or not pursue higher education; that is, teachers who earn a BA or likely differ in important ways from teachers who do not have such attainment. For example, teachers who pursue a BA may have higher overall language and mathematics abilities prior to entering their degree programs than teachers who don’t pursue a BA. It may be these preexisting academic skills that lead BA- level teachers to better support children or create higher quality classrooms, not the skills or knowledge acquired in their BA programs. Or there may be important sorting processes at work, related to which children end up in classrooms with more qualified teachers. While some of the analyses cited earlier control for other teacher and child characteristics that may be related to both teachers’ degree levels and child outcomes, it is not possible to account for all factors that may explain variation in teachers’ educational attainment. Therefore, we cannot know whether it is teachers’ levels of education that create higher-quality preschool classrooms, children’s outcomes, or other characteristics. While the research described earlier and presented here is useful for understanding how teacher characteristics are or are not related to children’s learning, some scholars and policymakers call for the field to exercise caution when using this literature to drive policy decisions (Kelley and Camilli, 2007). A desire to professionalize the ECE field is another driving force behind the trend of raising expectations and requirements for early childhood educators’ credentials. Early childhood educators have been viewed as less skilled than those in kindergarten to 12th-grade (K-12) 14 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] settings, and the field is seen as having little prestige or importance (Boyd, 2013). Further, ECE teachers typically earn much less than K-12 teachers, signaling that the work of ECE practitioners is less valued than that of their K-12 counterparts (NASEM, 2015). However, as the science underpinning our understanding of early childhood development has grown, so too has the call for more respect and higher training standards for early childhood educators. Developmental science indicates that the children have a high capacity for learning in their early years. Thus, early childhood educators play a key role in creating supportive, nurturing environments that help children thrive. Advocates argue that calling for higher educational standards for ECE teachers is one way to signal to the importance of the field and garner more respect and higher earnings for such teachers (NASEM, 2015; McCarthy and Lowenberg, 2017).
Teacher Education Credentialing Requirement in CERDEP and Other State-Funded PreK Programs As described earlier, the teacher education requirements for CERDEP educators differ in public and private CERDEP settings. Teachers in public school districts settings are required to have a BA—the same standard all K-12 teachers who work for SCDE schools are held to. In private CERDEP settings, teachers with a BA are preferred, but CERDEP policy only requires that teachers have earned an AA and show documentation that they are working toward earning a four-year college degree. Teachers are not required to be enrolled in course at all times, but they must complete a four-year degree within four years of being hired by a CERDEP provider to remain a CERDEP teacher. Although the required degree for lead teachers differs across public and private settings, all lead teachers across both settings are required to have specialized training in early childhood education. In public settings, teachers must have a South Carolina teacher certificate in early childhood or elementary education, and in the private settings, teachers’ AA must be in early childhood or a related field, or they must show completion of other specialized training in the fields. Based on data from the 2016–17 school year, 35 of 60 state-funded preK programs, just over half, required all lead teachers to have a four-year degree. In this way, CERDEP’s public and private settings each mirror about half of the nation’s other programs in terms of degree requirements (Friedman-Krauss and Kasmin, 2018). The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER)’s benchmark standard for lead teacher education requires that all teachers have at least a BA. Because the policy dictating the minimum education requirement in private CERDEP providers does not meet this benchmark, this is one area where South Carolina falls short of NIEER’s best practices. Similarly, CERDEP’s requirement does not meet NIEER’s standards for assistant teacher (known as instructional assistants in South Carolina) education requirements. Assistant teachers in both private and public CERDEP programs are required to have at least a high school diploma, while the NIEER benchmark standard requires that assistants have at least a CDA credential. However, instructional assistants are required to complete a South Carolina– 15 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] developed 3-credit hour introductory course in early childhood education known as Early Childhood Development 101 (ECD 101). The course is offered at all 16 technical and community colleges in the state. All instructional assistants, in both private and public settings, must enroll in and complete this course within one year of being employed as an instructional assistant. In this way, all instructional assistants do receive specialized training in early childhood education and development. To provide a comparison of how CERDEP’s teacher requirements measure up to other state- funded preK programs, we reviewed the teacher education requirements for the following nine state-funded 4K programs: • Alabama First Class Pre-K • Florida Voluntary Prekindergarten Program • Georgia Preschool Program • Kentucky Preschool Program • Mississippi Early Learning Collaborative • North Carolina Pre-K Program • Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K • Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) • West Virginia Universal Pre-K. In Table 2.1, we represent the results of this review. Seven of the programs we reviewed meet NIEER’s benchmark standard for lead teacher education by requiring all teachers to have a BA. Florida and West Virginia, like South Carolina, do not meet this benchmark (based on information collected from the 2016–2017 school year). The information in Table 2.1 suggests that having different credentialing requirements across private and public settings, as in South Carolina, is rare among the reviewed states. Although almost all of the 4K programs we reviewed are implemented through a mixed-delivery system, Virginia is the only other state in which teachers in private settings have a lower degree requirement (a high school degree) than teachers in public school settings (a BA). Although assistant teachers are not the focus of the CERDEP analysis presented in this chapter, we also reviewed the assistant teacher requirement as a point of comparison. Across this set of preK programs, there is more variation in the degree requirements for the assistant teachers as compared to lead teachers. Three of the 4K programs surveyed require assistant teachers to have a CDA or higher and thus meet NIEER’s standard. Five programs, including CERDEP, require assistants to have only a high school degree or equivalent. Florida and Virginia’s private providers have no education requirements for assistant teachers.
16 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table 2.1. Education Requirements for Lead and Assistant Teachers in State 4K Programs
Lead Teachers Assistant Teachers Different Meets Requirements Meets State NIEER Across NIEER Program Credential Requirement Standard Settings Credential Requirement Standard Alabama First BA with specialization in ü No CDA or 9 ECE/CD credits ü Class Pre-K ECE
Florida CDA or equivalent No None Voluntary Prekindergarten Program
Georgia BA with specialization in ü No CDA ü Preschool ECE Program
Kentucky BA with specialization in ü No HSD Preschool ECE Program
Mississippi BA with specialization in ü No AA in ECE, CD ü Early Learning ECE Collaborative
North BA with specialization in ü No HSD Carolina Pre-K ECE Program
South Public Settings: Yes HSD+ ECD101 Carolina BA with specialization in CERDEP ECE Private Settings: AA with specialization in ECE
Tennessee BA w/ specialization in ECE ü No HSD Voluntary Pre-K
Virginia Public Settings: Yes Public Settings: Preschool BA with specialization in HSD Initiative ECE Private Settings: (VPI) Private Settings: No requirement HSD with specialized training in ECE
West Virginia BA with specialization in ü No CDA ü Universal ECE Pre-K NOTES: All data pertain to the 2016–2017 school year, except Florida, where the data are for the 2013–2014 year. Abbreviations: ECD101= Early Childhood Development 101 course; HSD = high school diploma; SpEd = special education. SOURCE: Friedman-Krauss et al. (2018).
17 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes in CERDEP In Table 2.2, we present information on the distribution of education levels of lead CERDEP teachers in private center–based providers and public school district programs.7 The numbers in Table 2.2 refer to numbers and percentages of individual teachers. First Steps administrative records indicate that 211 lead teachers were employed by 192 CERDEP private providers in the 2017–2018 school year.8 Almost two-thirds of these teachers (approximately 64 percent) had attained a BA or higher. The majority of the teachers who had education beyond a BA— approximately 12 percent of teachers total—had a masters, doctoral, or professional degree. By contrast, and by design, the distribution of teacher education levels in the public settings looks somewhat different. First, with nearly 600 hundred lead teachers in 61 districts, the public schools employ about three times as many CERDEP teachers as the private settings. This differential is to be expected, given that the public schools served the vast majority of CERDEP children—over 80 percent. One hundred percent of teachers in the public districts had a BA; with slightly over 50 percent of teachers having a master’s degree, professional, or doctoral degree.
Table 2.2. Distribution of Education Level for CERDEP Lead Teachers: By Provider Type
Public School Districts Private Providers Teacher Highest Degree N Percentage N Percentage Associate degree 0 0.0 76 36.0 Bachelor’s degree 274 45.7 110 52.1 Master's, doctoral, or professional degree 325 54.3 25 11.9 Total 599 100.0 211 100.0 SOURCE: Public school district data as reported in SCDE (2018a); authors’ analysis of First Steps administrative data (2017–2018).
To estimate the relationship between teacher education levels and child outcomes, we limited our analysis to children in private CERDEP settings, as we were interested in understanding whether there is a difference in child outcomes among children who attended where all teachers had a BA, as compared to children who attended centers where some or no teachers had a BA. These analyses would not be possible for children in public settings because, as shown in Table 2.2, all teachers in public school districts had at least a BA. Available data for the private settings did not allow us to link teachers and children in private CERDEP providers with multiple classrooms. That is, if a private provider had two or more lead CERDEP teachers in multiple classrooms, we do not know which classrooms the children were in, or which teacher was their primary caregiver. For this reason, we explore the relationship between the share of teachers in
7 There was no information available on the education levels of CERDEP instructional assistants. 8 At the start of the 2017–2018 school year, First Steps reported a total of 197 providers; however, five providers left the program by the end of the school year. We report on only the remaining 192 providers. 18 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] private CERDEP providers who had a BA and children’s outcomes. Specifically, we assigned private CERDEP providers to one of three categories: 1) providers where all CERDEP teachers had a BA; 2) providers where some had a BA; and 3) and providers where no CERDEP teachers had a BA.9 Across all 192 providers, the number of CERDEP teachers per center ranged from one to three, with an average of just over one CERDEP teacher per provider. We present descriptive statistics from this categorization in Table 2.3; the top panel of this table includes information for all children and providers among the 192 providers who contributed data on teacher education. The numbers reported on the left side of Table 2.3 refer to numbers and percentages of individual private providers. The majority of providers fell into categories one and three; all CERDEP teachers had BA—62 percent of providers; and no CERDEP teachers had a BA—35 percent of providers. Only about three percent of providers employed multiple CERDEP teachers, some of whom did and some of whom did not have a BA. Among these centers, either 50 percent or 33 percent of CERDEP teachers had a BA. Taken together, there was little variation in teacher education levels within CERDEP providers. Many providers had only one teacher, and at centers with multiple teachers, those teachers tended to have the same level of educational attainment.
Table 2.3. Distribution of Private Providers and Children by Share of CERDEP Teachers with a BA: Full and Analytic Samples
Providers Children Indicator N Percentage N Percentage All Children and Providers All teachers with a BA 119 62.9 1,488 63.5 Some teachers with a BA 5 2.6 156 6.7 No teachers with a BA 68 35.4 698 29.8 Total 192 100.0 2,342 100.0 Analytic Sample
All teachers with a BA 117 62.2 1,211 65.1 Some teachers with a BA 4 2.1 110 5.9 No teachers with a BA 67 35.6 539 29.0 Total 188 100.0 1,860 100.0 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of First Steps and SCDE administrative data. NOTE: The analytic sample includes children who attended a private provider for which the teacher education levels were observed, and that had B3-GOLD scores at the beginning and end of year.
9 Note that many, if not most, private CERDEP providers also served children who were not funded by the CERDEP program (e.g. infants and toddlers, other preschool-aged children). As such, these providers likely employed other teachers who cared for these children. The categorization of providers with different percentages of BA-level teachers refers to CERDEP teachers only, or teachers who led classrooms serving CERDEP children. The providers may have employed other teachers—with or without a BA—who are not counted here. 19 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
We also present the number of CERDEP children who attended providers in each of the three categories. A total of 2,342 children were present in the administrative data. These children attended one of the 192 private CERDEP providers at some point during the 2017–2018 school year and were assessed at either the beginning or end of the year. Approximately 60 percent of these children attended providers where all CERDEP teachers had a BA, and about six percent of children attended providers where some had a BA. Therefore approximately two-thirds of children served in private settings attended a center where at least one lead teacher had a BA. The remaining 30 percent of children attended providers where no teacher had four-year college degree. In the bottom panel of Table 2.3 we present the same statistics for the providers and children included in our analytic sample. We limited our analytic sample to children who had B3–GOLD assessment scores at both the beginning and end of the 4K year and who had observed data on the demographic characteristics collected in the SCDE dataset. These inclusion criteria brought our sample to 1860 children in 188 providers, or approximately 80 percent of children tested and 97 percent of total providers. The breakdown of children across the three different provider characteristics is very similar to the full sample, with about 70 percent of children in providers where some or all CERDEP teachers had a BA. While the remainder of our analyses focus on children who attended CERDEP in private providers only, it is important to note that a minority of all CERDEP children were served in private settings in the 2017–2018 school year—17 percent of the approximately 11,700 children total. The large majority of children who attended CERDEP in the 2017–2018 school year (about 83 percent) did so in the public school districts (see Appendix A and Karoly and Gomez [2019] for a more-detailed discussion of CERDEP enrollment patterns). All children who attended CERDEP in public settings were enrolled in a classroom with a BA-level teacher. Therefore, when accounting for the fact that about 65 percent of children in private settings attended a center where all teachers had a BA, approximately 94 percent of all children, or nearly all children across public and private settings, were taught by a teacher with a four-year degree.
Estimating the Relationship Between Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes To understand whether there was a relationship between the share of teachers in private CERDEP providers who had a BA and child learning outcomes, we first present the raw percentages of children who met or exceeded age-level expectations on the B3–GOLD language and literacy scales at the end of 4K for the total analytic sample, and by the three provider categories (see Table 2.4). Consistent with previous reports of CERDEP children’s scores on the end of year 4K assessments (EOC, 2019), we found that the large majority of all children met or exceeded age-level expectations on the B3–GOLD assessments. Specifically, of all children in the analytic sample, 85 percent and nearly 90 percent met or exceeded expectations on the
20 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] language and literacy scales, respectively. The table also shows that before accounting for any child demographic characteristics or key provider characteristics, a higher percentage of children
Table 2.4. Children’s End of 4K B3–GOLD Language and Literacy Scores for the Analytic Sample of Children in Private Providers by Provider Teacher Education Category
Provider Teacher Education Category Total Some (Analytic All Teachers Teachers No Teachers Indicator Sample) Have a BA Have a BA Have a BA Counts Language Meets or exceeds expectations 1,581 1,048 91 442 Below expectations 279 163 19 97 Total 1,860 1,211 110 539 Literacy Meets or exceeds expectations 1,686 1,098 95 493 Below expectations 171 110 15 46 Total 1,857 1,208 110 539 Percentage Distribution Language Meets or exceeds expectations 85.0 86.5 82.7 82.0 Below expectations 15.0 13.5 17.3 18.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Literacy Meets or exceeds expectations 90.8 90.9 86.4 91.5 Below expectations 9.2 9.1 13.6 8.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 SOURCE: Author’s analysis of First Steps and SCDE data. who attended centers where all or some of the teachers had a BA met or exceeded age-level expectations on the language scale at the end of 4K, as compared with children who attended providers where no CERDEP teachers had BA. Almost 87 percent of children who attended centers where all teachers had a BA met or exceeded expectations, as compared with 82 percent of children who attended centers where no CERDEP teachers had a BA. The pattern is slightly different for the literacy outcome. Across all three types of providers, approximately 90 percent of children met or exceeded age expectations on the literacy outcome. Indeed, a slightly larger percentage of children in providers where no teachers had a BA met or exceeded expectations (92 percent), as compared to children in centers where some or all teachers had a BA (86 and 91
21 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] percent, respectively). However, the contrasts across the groups, for both outcomes, are small— no larger than five percentage points for any one comparison.10 While useful for painting a general picture of how children across the different provider groups scored at the end of their 4K year, these comparisons do not take into account the selection of children into providers: That is, we cannot be sure that teachers’ education levels cause these differences. Children are not randomly assigned to centers with different percentages of BA-level teachers. Indeed, the literature suggests that many different factors play into parents’ ECE decisions (Gould and Cooke, 2015). It is possible that parents with more resources are likely to select providers with higher levels of education. These enterprising parents may be better able to support their children’s learning at home as well. As such, the higher skill level (on the language outcome) of children in centers with teachers with a BA might not be caused by teacher education, but by their home environment. Similarly, the providers that attract BA-level teachers may be different in important ways from those that employ teachers with an AA. The center-level characteristics may help to explain some of the differences in child outcomes. For these reasons, we conducted statistical comparison of children’s outcomes by the three provider categories, controlling for key child and provider characteristics.11 These characteristics include children’s language and literacy scores from the beginning of their 4K year, age, race, whether they had an individual education plan. Controlling for these characteristics may help account for the difference between children whose parents choose for them to attend centers where all teachers had a BA, as compared with centers where some or no teachers had a BA. The center characteristics include the total number of CERDEP teachers and children, measures of center quality, whether the provider was new to CERDEP, and the type of program the provider offered (e.g. traditional year, or extended day). We also included census characteristics, using the center’s zip code,12 such as the percentage of adults with different degree levels, and average family income (see Appendix B for a full list of covariates and descriptive statistics). Controlling for these characteristics may help account for important variation between centers who employ teachers with different degree levels.
10 In addition to comparing the raw percentages, we also used linear probability models to compare the likelihood that children across the different provider groups met or exceeded expectations (see Appendix B for methodological details). These tests yielded one statistically significant result for the language outcome only: children in centers where all teachers had a BA were significantly more likely to meet or exceed expectations than children in centers where no teachers had a BA. However, this result was not robust to a cluster correction that accounted for children nested within centers. 11 We used linear probability models, with robust standard errors to adjust for children nested within centers. Complete methodological details are explained in Appendix B. 12 We note that we did not have access to child addresses and therefore do not know if children lived in the same zip codes as the centers they attended. For this reason, the zip code level control may not explain selection processes at the child level, but rather at the provider level.
22 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
By controlling for these characteristics, the statistical comparisons we present are akin to comparing children who went to centers with teachers with different levels of education, with all other characteristics being equal. Importantly, these analyses cannot determine whether there is a causal link between teacher education and child outcomes. While we are able to account for some important child and center characteristics, there are likely other unobserved characteristics that may affect teacher education levels and children outcomes. For example, we have no other information on the teachers themselves. As discussed earlier, there could be other teacher characteristics that are related to both teacher degree levels, and child outcomes that are not included here. However, the analyses are still useful as they provide a more nuanced understanding of the comparison of child outcomes by teacher education levels. In addition to accounting for key control variables, these statistical tests allow us to explore whether any differences between the groups are statistically significant. Statistical significance is an indicator of the certainty we can attribute to the results. If a result is statistically significant, we have confidence that the estimated differences were not due only to idiosyncrasies of the particular sample or measurement occasion; rather, we have confidence that the estimated results represent a difference in the population of interest. When controlling for a set of key child and provider characteristics, we found no statistically significant differences in children’s end of year B3–GOLD language and literacy scores when comparing children who attended private providers where all teachers had a BA with children who attended private providers where some or no teachers had a BA. Said differently, children who attended providers where all CERDEP teachers had a BA were equally as likely to meet or exceed age-level expectations on the language and literacy scores as children who attended providers where only some or no CERDEP teachers had a BA. These analyses provide no evidence to suggest that, when comparing otherwise similar children who attended providers with similar characteristics, children with teachers who had a higher degree level ended their 4K year with stronger language or literacy skills. This null finding is consistent with the majority of the literature described earlier. Research indicates that requiring teachers to have a certain level of education should not be the only programmatic characteristic designed to ensure high-quality learning environments for young children (Schilder, 2016). Indeed, other supports—namely ongoing in-service professional development for teachers— should be a part of an effective preK program. In the CERDEP context, teachers who do not have a BA are required to show that they are making progress toward earning a four-year college degree and must complete a degree within four years. In this way, teachers with only an AA are required to receive professional development in the form of their degree program. First Steps regional coordinators keep local records on teachers’ progress; however, these data are not stored centrally, and we were not available to determine what percentage of teachers with an AA were actively enrolled course work during the 2017–2018 school year. However, if some of the 36 percent of teachers who had an AA were receiving BA- level instruction during the coursework on how to create effective learning environments for 23 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] young children, it is possible that their classroom practices looked similar to teachers who had already earned a BA. This is one explanation as to why we do not detect a relationship between child outcomes and teachers’ levels of education. In the next chapter, we continue to explore this issue by taking a closer look at all the in-service professional development opportunities that CERDEP teachers had access to in the 2017–2018 school year.
24 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] 3. Professional Development for CERDEP Teachers
This chapter focuses on the professional development opportunities available to CERDEP teachers in public and private settings. Specifically, we sought to answer the following research questions: • What professional development opportunities were offered to CERDEP educators, including lead teachers and instructional assistants, in the 2017–2018 school year? How frequently were the activities offered (e.g., on a rolling basis, as needed, annually)? In which opportunities did educators participate? What content was offered and how were the trainings delivered? • To what extent did professional development activities differ between public school districts and private CERDEP providers? To what extent did activities or opportunities vary within public or private CERDEP providers? • What systems are used to track the teacher professional development opportunities available to CERDEP providers? We begin by reviewing the literature on professional development systems and models in early childhood settings, and professional development requirements in other state-funded early childhood programs. In our review of relevant professional development interventions and models, we focus primarily on literacy-related models or interventions, as early reading in children is one main goal of CERDEP. Based the analysis of our interviews and document review (see Chapter 1 for details on these methods), we present an overview of the CERDEP in- service professional development requirements, a summary of the professional development offerings in the 2017–2018 school year, and findings from our review of CERDEP’s professional development requirement tracking system.
Professional Development for ECE Practitioners In-service ECE professional development includes different activities and opportunities with various goals and intended outcomes for teachers. As Sheridan et al. (2009) state, “…professional development in early childhood programs refers to a number of experiences that promote education, training, and development opportunities for early childhood practitioners who do or will work with young children…(pg. 379).” For example, teachers can attend a week- long conference or seminar that covers multiple topics and domains, or attend quarterly hour- long workshops focused on a specific domain. Classroom- or school-based activities such as coaching or professional learning communities composed of other teachers are another way teachers may experience a type of professional development. Additionally, such online activities
25 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] as webinars or interactive workshops can provide teachers with relevant training and development activities, much like in-person opportunities. Cannon et al. (2016) present a taxonomy of common ECE professional supports, or activities. We draw on definitions of three of these activities for this report: 1. Non–credit-bearing workshops, seminars or courses offered by a variety of organizations to build teachers’ skills. These workshops can focus on a range of topics, sometimes take place during conferences, and can be in-person or delivered virtually. They are typical of the in-service professional development teachers often receive. 2. Coaching or mentoring, or the one-on-one or small group support teachers receive from an experienced expert to help improve their practice. 3. Credit-bearing coursework, or courses at formal academic institutions, usually for the purpose of earning a postsecondary degree or credential. This activity is typical of, but not exclusive to, pre-service professional development. Evaluations of these different professional development activities suggest that they can have positive effects on teacher practices, classroom quality scores, and child developmental outcomes, but that is not always the case (e.g., Bowne, Yoshikawa, and Snow, 2016; Dickinson and Caswell, 2007; Early et al., 2017; Landry et al., 2009; Landry et al., 2006; Powell et al., 2010). These evaluations have used multiple methods and focused on a variety of classroom quality outcomes or children’s school readiness skills in examining various professional development interventions (e.g., online only-courses, workshops, in-person courses, a mix of professional development offerings). However, the literature suggests different levels of effectiveness depending on the professional development activity. Professional development workshops are the most common form of in-service activity for ECE teachers (Cannon et al., 2016). Some studies show that participation in stand-alone workshops can be positively related to teacher practice (Girolametto et al., 2007). However, comprehensive reviews of the literature indicate that standalone workshops or courses may not be effective forms of professional development and do not show consistently positive relationships with how teachers perform in the classroom, or to child outcomes (Bowman, Donovan, and Burns, 2000; Schachter, 2015). Non–credit-bearing workshops and courses may be more likely to be related to changes in teachers’ practices when they are long-term, sustained, or included in conjunction with other types of professional development, like the coaching interventions we turn to next (Garet et al., 2001; Gomez, Kagan, and Fox, 2015). There is growing evidence on the effectiveness of coaching and mentoring interventions. One such piece of evidence is a randomized evaluation of an early literacy professional development intervention for Head Start teachers, that included two coaching treatment conditions—one delivered in person and the other delivered remotely (Powell et al., 2010). The half-school year intervention included a two-day workshop at the start of the semester, followed by seven
26 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] coaching sessions which focused intensely on individualized support for literacy instruction. The experimental evaluation of the intervention showed positive effects, no matter the treatment type (onsite compared with remote coaching), on classroom language and literacy supports and children’s letter knowledge, writing, and sound-blending skills. Other experimental evaluations of intensive coaching interventions have also shown positive effects on teachers’ classroom practices, such as the quality of interactions between teachers and students (Early et al., 2014). As noted earlier, there is also evidence to suggest that professional development supports that combine workshops and trainings, along with coaching services, can yield positive effects. For example, a rigorous evaluation of an early literacy professional development intervention, implemented in preschools and child care centers serving low-income children, also had a positive effect on teacher instructional practices and children’s literacy and language school readiness skills (Landry et al., 2009). The intervention had four treatment conditions to which participating schools were randomly assigned. The treatment conditions included different combinations of the following supports: online training, in-classroom mentoring, and detailed monitoring and feedback on instructional practice and children’s progress . Results from the study indicate that teacher practices and child outcomes were most positively affected by the intensive early literacy professional development treatment that included in-person mentoring, the online course, and monitoring that provided detailed feedback to teachers. Neuman and Cunningham (2009) found a similarly positive result of a training and coaching intervention on teachers’ language and literacy instructional practices. A recent meta-analysis supports these individual study findings and indicates that intensive literacy-focused professional development (e.g., interventions that include multiple professional development opportunities, such as workshops, coaching, online trainings) and coaching had the strongest positive relationships with classroom processes (Markussen-Brown et al., 2017). We focus less attention here on credit-bearing courses, as they are a less common form of in- service professional development, and not typically offered by organizations serving preK teachers (Muenchow et al., 2013). As we describe in Chapter 2, and as the results of our analysis suggest, there is conflicting evidence regarding the association between teachers’ education levels—which requires the completion of credit-bearing courses—and child outcomes. However, teacher education levels may be associated with classroom practice and other measures of classroom quality (Manning et al., 2017). There have been few evaluations of the effects of discrete credit-bearing courses (as opposed completing a full degree course). The limited evidence is mixed, with some studies suggesting null effects and others describing a positive relationship between teachers’ participation in credit-bearing courses and teacher’s classroom practice (Muenchow et al., 2013).
27 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Key Elements of Professional Development Strategies and Interventions Although some of the rigorous evaluations described in the previous section indicate that in- service professional development opportunities in ECE can have positive effects on teacher, classroom, and child outcomes, not all interventions produce significant results. This may have several explanations, including the effectiveness of the intervention components or fidelity of implementation. Given that many professional development opportunities are multifaceted with a number of different activities and strategies, it can often be difficult to determine the specific components or ingredients that make professional development effective, and high-quality professional development is often defined in different ways. For example, teacher professional development is one of NIEER’s benchmark standards for preschool quality. To meet the quality standard, teachers in state preK programs must receive at least 15 hours of professional development per year, some of which must include individualize coaching, and all teachers must have a written, annual individualized professional development plan (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018). This benchmark is based on recent, rigorous research regarding the effectiveness of professional development, including teacher coaching, for improving classroom quality and student outcomes (Egert, Fukkink, and Eckhardt, 2018; Kraft, Blazar, and Hogan, 2018). K-12 education research indicates that professional development opportunities that provide active learning elements, have a clear content-knowledge focus, and are aligned with required standards or other activities teachers participate in can help teachers gain knowledge, strengthen their skills, or both (Garet et al., 2001). In the ECE field, it is likely that similar professional development components are related to effectiveness, meaning positive changes in teacher practices and child outcomes. In a comprehensive literature review of effective professional development elements, Zaslow and colleagues (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) identified six features of professional development that may have the most meaningful and lasting effects on teacher practices and child outcomes. 1. Opportunities are content- or instructionally specific: workshops or trainings are clearly linked to a content area (e.g., language or literacy) and focus on specialized instruction, instead of having broad content or techniques as the professional development objectives. 2. Teachers are provided with individualized training or coaching: individualized professional development tended to show the biggest effect on teacher practices; however, the authors emphasize that this is not always the case, and more research is needed to understand which components of coaching or mentoring matter the most for teacher practice. 3. Teachers within the same classroom or center participate in the same professional development opportunities: providing workshops, courses, or other professional
28 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
learning experiences to teachers in the same location can promote alignment in instructional practices and collaboration among teachers. 4. Intensity and duration of opportunities matter, and should be aligned with professional development goals: ensuring that professional development opportunities’ intensity (e.g., number of hours) and duration (e.g., multi-day or semester long courses) match the stated goals may be related to teacher and child outcomes. In K-12 education this notion is also supported, with research findings showing that longer, intensive professional development is likely to have a bigger effect on teacher practices than shorter, less intensive opportunities (Garet et al., 2001). 5. Professional development opportunities are aligned with educators’ ability to conduct child assessments in the appropriate domains: educators should be prepared to utilize assessments to better understand where strengths and gaps are in children’s skills and knowledge and then use the information to adjust practices. 6. State or other organizational standards should be considered when designing professional development opportunities: offerings should be aligned with required standards so that consistent information is provided to teachers. We focus on these elements from Zaslow and colleagues (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) as we believe they, along with NIEER professional development benchmarks, are a way to more fully understand whether professional development activities are likely to be effective at changing or strengthening teacher practices and subsequently child outcomes. Later in this report, we will return to these elements as a way to gauge how well current CERDEP professional development opportunities align with the six features.
Professional Development Requirements in State-Funded 4K Programs Systems NIEER’s survey of state 4K programs report that nearly all existing programs require lead and assistant teachers to complete some amount of in-service professional development. In Table 3.1, we present data on the professional development requirements in a sample of state-funded 4K programs in South Carolina and nine other states. The features we highlight in this table are guided by four key components of an early childhood professional development systems described in chapter one (Karoly, 2012). We report on the number of required hours of professional development in addition to whether the states’ requirements meet NIEER’s staff professional development benchmark standards. We also document whether the states surveyed have an ECE workforce registry. An ECE workforce registry is a key data system that can contribute to a comprehensive state professional development system (Karoly, 2012). Such workforce registries often track teachers’ education
29 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] levels, credential attainment, and degree completion. Registries that include data from multiple early learning agencies, including public and private centers, is one way states and localities track professional development and determine whether teachers or other ECE staff meet professional development or workforce requirements (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education, 2016). In some states, workforce registry information is linked to other sources of ECE data, such as data on children’s health and development (King et al., 2018). In 2018, King and colleagues (2018) conducted a nationwide
30 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table 3.1. Teacher Professional Development Requirements and Features in State-Funded 4K Programs
Meets ECE Hours of PD Required for Hours of PD Required NIEER Workforce State Program Lead Teachers for Assistant Teachers Standard Registry Alabama First Class 30 hours per year 20 hours per year ü Yes Pre-K Florida Voluntary 10 hours per year Not reported Yes Prekindergarten Program Georgia Preschool 15 hours per year 15 hours per year ü Yes Program Kentucky Preschool 24 hours per year 18 hours per year Yes Program Mississippi Early 15 hours per year 15 hours per year No Learning Collaborative North Carolina Pre-K 80 hours over 5 years 6 credit hours over 5 years Yes Program South Carolina 15 hours per year 15 hours per year ü No CERDEP Tennessee Voluntary 18 hours per year 12 hours per year No Pre-K Virginia Preschool 15 hours per year Varies by locale Yes Initiative (VPI) West Virginia 15 hours per year 15 hours per year Yes Universal Pre-K SOURCE: Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018; National Workforce Registry Alliance, undated; Early Childhood Data Collaborative, undated. NOTES: PD = professional development. survey to understand the current status of early childhood data systems. The authors found that the majority of states collect some sort of data in a workforce registry. CERDEP policies mandate that all lead teachers and instructional assistants complete 15 hours of professional development per year. As shown in Table 3.1, CERDEP’s 15 hour–per year requirement for lead teacher professional development is on par with many other states. Only the programs in Kentucky, Alabama, and Tennessee require that lead teachers complete more than 15 hours per year. The ten programs reviewed here vary in whether assistant teachers are required to complete the same or fewer hours than lead teachers. Georgia, Mississippi, and West Virginia are like South Carolina, in that assistant teachers are held to the same expectation as lead teachers, while in North Carolina, Kentucky, and Alabama, assistant teachers are required to complete fewer hours. CERDEP is one of only three state programs we reviewed that meets NIEER’s staff professional development benchmark standard (as reported in NIEER’s report on the 2016–2017 school year). In the sections that follow, we detail exactly what opportunities teachers had that allow them to meet this requirement. Almost all of the states we reviewed use a workforce registry to track teacher education and credentials, professional development offerings, and professional development participation, though the quality of the registries are 31 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] unknown to the authors. South Carolina is among only three states in this set of ten states without this kind of data system.
Professional Development in the Georgia PreK Program To further illustrate how other state preK programs provide professional development to staff, we conducted a more in-depth review of one program, the Georgia PreK program. We selected Georgia in part because of its proximity to South Carolina. In addition, Georgia’s program is one of the oldest universal state-funded 4K programs in the country, and is often held up as an exemplar (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018). Georgia Pre-K is delivered across a number of different settings, including public schools, private childcare centers, faith-based organizations, Head Start agencies, state colleges and universities, and military facilities. The program is administered by Bright from the Start: Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning (DECAL). The Georgia program is free to all age eligible 4-year-old children in their year before kindergarten. Teacher professional development is a hallmark of Georgia’s 4K program. As described in Table 3.1, all 4K teachers (leads and assistants) are required to complete 15 hours of professional development in each calendar year. In addition, all teachers are required to write and follow an individualized professional development plan and receive individualized coaching throughout the school year. Because of these features, the state meets NIEER’s benchmark requirements for staff professional development. Georgia’s preK program has taken advantage of resources in the state professional development system to ensure that teachers have access to a number of different professional development opportunities to meet these requirements. In 2010, Georgia was awarded a $400 million federal Race to the Top grant to improve the educational outcomes of all children across the state. The state allocated a portion of these funds to DECAL to improve and evaluate professional development efforts in the state’s ECE settings. Since then, DECAL has used these and other Georgia Pre-K funds to implement and test many professional development models for its preK teachers. A 2014 evaluation report describes two different models used in the state— Making the Most of Classroom Interactions (MMCI) and My Teaching PartnerTM (MTP) (Early et al., 2014). Both models are designed to be used with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System TM (CLASS), an observation tool focused on promoting high-quality teacher-child interaction. MMCI is an in-person professional development program in which groups of teachers meet with an instructor over ten two-and half hour sessions and learn to identify and analyze teacher-child interactions and discuss ways to promote student learning. By contrast, MTP is a remote professional development model, in which teachers work with a coach via conference calls and web communication. Teachers record videos of themselves interacting with their students; the coach then reviews the video and provides detailed feedback to teachers in multiple rounds of discussion and communication.
32 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
The evaluation of these interventions showed that the Georgia preK teachers who participated in MTP and MMCI showed improvements in their classroom practices compared with teachers who did not, with MMCI teachers showing more gains (Early et al., 2014). A 2017 report indicated that DECAL has continued to use these models as a key component of the state’s professional development offerings for some preK teachers. Usage of these well-defined and research-based professional development interventions is one way that Georgia’s professional development system ensures outreach and access to high-quality training experiences for its preK teachers. In addition to the coaching models described earlier, DECAL and other local organizations administer in-person and virtual professional development workshops throughout the year. To facilitate additional learning, DECAL launched the Online Library Learning Initiative (OLLI), “a virtual warehouse of online learning modules and video podcasts designed specifically for the Early Learning Community teaching children from birth to age five” (Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning, 2019). OLLI is intended to offer more flexibility to educators in how they access professional development. If a practitioner is unable to attend an in-person training, a functioning internet connection will allow them to access OLLI’s resources. DECAL also makes use of an ECE workforce. The Georgia Professional Development System (GaPDS) is Georgia’s state-level ECE workforce registry. It is designed specifically for educators who work “directly with young children or on their behalf.” Georgia Pre-K teachers, as well as other ECE practitioners in the state, use GaPDS as a comprehensive system for all their professional development tracking needs. ECE professionals can create a profile that stores their education and training credentials (e.g., preservice degrees) and tracks their in-service professional development training. GaPDS also serves as a registry of DECAL-sponsored trainings. Through one common portal, teachers can search and register for trainings to meet professional development requirements. In addition, GaPDS can be used as a data source to track state-level trends in ECE-related professional development. Stakeholders can use the system to monitor how much training educators take-up and trends in the trainings offered and attended.
CERDEP Professional Development Requirements and Offerings CERDEP legislation outlines professional development requirements for 4K lead teachers and instructional assistants in both private providers and public school districts.13 As described in Chapter 1, all CERDEP providers are required to be certified by the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS requires that all teachers in certified centers receive 15 hours per year of professional development. CERDEP guidelines mirror this requirement. The same 15 hours of training fulfill both the DSS and CERDEP professional development requirements for CERDEP
13 CERDEP legislation also requires preschool directors receive professional development training (20 hours annually). Because the focus of this report is on teachers, we do not include information on training required or what opportunities are offered to directors. 33 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] teachers. Both CERDEP and DSS guidelines mandate that teachers’ professional development hours fall within the following domains (SCDE, 2018b; South Carolina Department of Social Services, 2018a): • child growth and development • curriculum • teaching children from poverty • teaching emergent literacy • child health and safety, and nutrition • special needs, program administration or other DSS approved area • blood-borne pathogen training. First Steps and SCDE submit a CERDEP report to the EOC on an annual basis, detailing the state of the program. In these reports, both detailed that 100 percent of CERDEP teachers in both public and private settings met the professional development requirements. In the following section, we detail the opportunities that were provided to teachers in both public school districts and private providers to meet their required professional development hours in the 2017–2018 school year. In each case, we focus on the three categories of professional development opportunities reviewed earlier: non–credit-bearing workshops and trainings, coaching and mentoring, and credit-bearing courses.
Professional Development Offerings for CERDEP Teachers in Public School Districts
Workshops and Trainings For CERDEP teachers in public school districts, OELL provides various professional learning opportunities (PLO) to educators throughout the school year. In the 2017–2018 school year, opportunities were provided regionally, allowing personnel from school districts throughout the state to attend trainings and workshops that were most convenient to them. PLOs are structured around the Learning Forward: Standards for Professional Learning (SCDE, 2018a). The Learning Forward standards include seven components to promote effective professional development opportunities, including: learning communities, resources, learning designs, outcomes, leadership, data, and implementation (Learning Forward, undated). OELL used these standards to help design its PLOs. In school year 2017–2018, OELL provided more than 30 professional development opportunities. Based on SCDE’s annual report to the EOC, these opportunities amounted to “approximately 195 hours” of training (SCDE, 2018a, p. 14). These opportunities primarily took the form of workshops and courses. Topics included preschool curricula, child and classroom assessments, literacy skills, creating language and literacy-rich environments, states’ early learning standards, family engagement, and other topics. These courses were spread out across
34 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] the school year, occurring in the fall, spring, and summer. Additionally, in school year 2017– 2018, OELL provided train-the-trainer workshops on the South Carolina Early Learning Standards to school district staff.14 The district leaders then were able to take the training back to CERDEP personnel in local school districts. OELL also offered online trainings to public CERDEP teachers. A notable example is the 14-module Early Learning Language and Literacy provided through the U.S. Department of Education Preschool Development Grants Technical Assistance Office (Preschool Development Grants, undated). Completing all 14 modules resulted in participants earning 42 approved professional development hours. PLOs also extended into the summer following the 2017–2018 school year. In summer 2018, the OELL provided intensive, two-day trainings on early literacy and learning research and best practices. CERDEP personnel that participated in the same research and best practices summer 2017 training could attend a follow-up two-day training in summer 2018 on how to use data to inform practice and improve academic achievement. Given the number and hours of PLO’s OELL offered, a teacher in a public setting could have easily fulfilled their 15-hour requirement by attending a subset of these offerings. In addition to the professional development learning opportunities offered by OELL, school districts had the freedom to provide workshops or trainings to CERDEP teachers they employed. Indeed, districts had a great deal of local control when it came to the professional development they offer their teachers. OELL reported that district specific trainings in 2017–2018 included topics in reading, writing, math, social and emotional development, preschool curricula, child assessments, behavior management, and early learning standards, among others. It is likely that variation existed in the nature of these professional development opportunities across districts. However, in the absence of specific, systematically collected information about these opportunities, it is not possible to detail how professional development opportunities for CERDEP teachers differed from one district to another.
Coaching and Mentoring OELL was responsible for conducting annual quality monitoring visits to CERDEP classrooms in 2017–2018 school year. These visits offered an opportunity for CERDEP teachers to receive coaching and mentoring. The quality monitoring visits were conducted by SCDE- employed early learning specialists with expertise in ECE and literacy development. In the 2017–2018 school year there were three specialists employed by OELL and tasked with conducting monitoring visits. During the visits, the early learning specialists conducted a classroom observation using the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO), a classroom observation tool designed to measure the quality of the language and literacy environment and instructional practices in ECE classrooms. The specialist also checked for
14 See Appendix A for a description of the state’s early learning standards. 35 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] compliance with CERDEP regulations, such as usage of CERDEP-approved curricula. Following the classroom observations, the early literacy specialist held a coaching conference with the lead teacher and, when available, the assistant teacher, a district-level early childhood coordinator,15 another school administrator (e.g., the principal), or some combination thereof. In addition, all South Carolina public elementary schools employed a literacy coach. When possible, the literacy coach was asked to join these conferences. OELL key informants reported that during the coaching conferences, the literacy specialist reviewed the results of the ELLCO, highlighting areas of strength and weakness. The specialist used a SCDE-developed coaching worksheet to support teachers in developing goals for improving their classroom practice based on the observation results. OELL intended for the district early childhood coordinator, school literacy coach, or both to continue working with individual teachers on meeting these goals throughout the year. However, outside of the monitoring visit, no other mandated coaching or mentoring sessions or supports were part of the CERDEP program. SCDE reported that in the 2017–2018 school year, OELL made monitoring visits to approximately 40 percent of CERDEP classrooms (SCDE, 2018a). New classrooms and classrooms in districts that were part of the State Supreme Court case that led to CERDEP’s establishment were given priority. In addition, it is likely that school-level literacy coaches served some CERDEP teachers; however, no systematic data exists to document the extent or degree of coaching received.
Credit-Bearing Courses Based on our review, credit-bearing courses were not part of the official professional development offerings by OELL or the districts in the 2017–2018 school year. However, teachers have the freedom to enroll in credit-bearing courses at a college, university, or other postsecondary education and training institution. Because all CERDEP teachers in public districts have a BA, any enrollment in credit-bearing courses was likely connected the pursuit of a graduate degree, or some other post-baccalaureate credential, certificate, or course.
Professional Development Offerings for CERDEP Teachers in Private Providers We now detail the professional development opportunities offered to CERDEP teachers in private centers, again differentiating between the three categories of professional development opportunities.
15 Some CERDEP districts have a position called an early childhood coordinator who acts as an administrator managing CERDEP classrooms across multiple sites and schools within a district. See Karoly and Gomez (2019) for more information on the role.
36 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Workshops and Trainings First Steps provides professional development opportunities for CERDEP teachers employed by private providers.16 In the 2017–2018 school year, these opportunities primarily took the form of one-time workshops and courses. At the beginning of the school year, First Steps organized a four-day academy for all 4K teachers. The academy covered topics such as preschool curriculum, language and literacy, child assessments (e.g., B3–GOLD), lesson planning, social and emotional development, parent engagement, the South Carolina Early Learning Standards, and classroom management. Additionally, prior to the all-teacher academy, First Steps provided a three-day new teacher academy where new CERDEP teachers could learn more about First Steps, including expectations, various child care or preschool programs, and preschool curricula. In total, new teachers received seven full days of training (7.5 hours each day) prior to the start of the new school year. Key informants reported that for most private CERDEP providers, the majority of required professional development hours were earned during the academies. In addition to the teacher academies, First Steps provided professional development workshops throughout the school year. Trainings were coordinated by First Steps’ 13 regional coordinators. The regional coordinators are administrators who work with providers in designated regions of the state to ensure compliance with CERDEP regulations and to support program quality. During the 2017–2018 school year, four regional training days were offered at locations across the state. These trainings focused on classroom observations, Creative Curriculum implementation,17 and summer literacy activities. The regional coordinators also plan other region-specific trainings throughout the year as needed. As described in more detail in a later section, all First Steps workshops are certified by DSS via the state-level professional development tracking system.18 First Steps also offered financial support to some private teachers and directors to attend the South Carolina Early Childhood Association’s and the South Carolina Association for the Education of Young Children annual conferences. During the two-day conferences, a number of trainings were offered, many of which can count toward the annual required 15 hours. Finally, the directors at private CERDEP providers may have also offered professional development for the staff at their centers. First Steps did not collect data on the extent to which directors offer trainings, or how much teachers take advantage of them. However, key informants indicated that most private providers relied primarily on First Steps’ state and regional offerings.
16 Workshops and training opportunities are provided to preschool directors; however, we do not cover that information here, as our focus is on preschool teachers. 17 Creative Curriculum is one of the approved curricula CERDEP providers can employ in their classrooms ( See Appendix A for more detail). 18 In addition, teachers who do have a state-level SCDE teaching certification can use the hours earned at the summer academy to maintain their certification through renewal credit hours.
37 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Coaching and Mentoring First Steps regional coordinators were responsible for conducting quality monitoring visits and coaching sessions with private CERDEP providers. The regional coordinators aimed to visit each CERDEP provider twice a month for approximately one to two hours, but up to seven hours if needed. Depending on the regional coordinator case load and providers’ needs, the frequency and length of visits may have varied. During these visits, the regional coordinators provided coaching and mentoring using a range of different techniques, including conducting classroom observations, providing feedback on teachers’ instructional practices, modeling instructional techniques, and troubleshooting concerns in the classrooms. Beginning with the 2017–2018 school year, First Steps developed and adopted the Building Learner Outcomes through Opportunities and Models (BLOOM) plan, a framework to guide the coaching sessions with private CERDEP providers. As part of BLOOM, regional coordinators worked with teachers to conduct observations and self-assessments, set goals, and provide reflection time. Regional coordinators applied the BLOOM model during the bimonthly visits to CERDEP providers. Sessions during these visits focused on specific areas, such as curriculum implementation or self-regulation skills. As part of the process, teachers created “growth and development” plans. These plans included three goals in specific, predetermined areas of development. In 2017–2018 the three areas were: Creative Curriculum implementation, classroom environment, and developing social emotional skills utilizing Conscious Discipline, an evidence-based behavior management and social emotional learning approach. Over the course of the year, teachers, along with their regional coordinators, tracked their progress toward their goals. BLOOM provided a more intensive, defined set of activities for regional coordinators to use during their visits with CERDEP providers.
Credit-Bearing Courses Based on our review, credit-bearing courses were not part of the official professional development offerings provided by First Steps. However, as described in Chapter 2, all teachers employed by CERDEP private providers who do not have a BA must be enrolled in a university program working toward a four-year degree. Our analyses suggest that 36 percent of CERDEP teachers in private settings in the 2017–2018 school year did not have a BA. Given the policy, some of these teachers may have been enrolled in credit-bearing coursework as they worked toward a four-year degree. First Steps regional coordinators keep record of the postsecondary progress teachers with an AA make toward their four-year degree. However, in the 2017–2018 school year these data were not stored centrally, and were not used to document which teachers were enrolled in coursework, or what sort of courses they were engaged in.
38 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Comparing Professional Development Opportunities for Public and Private CERDEP Providers As noted, CERDEP is administered and implemented by two separate entities, SCDE and First Steps. Based on our review, the professional development opportunities offered to public providers by SCDE and to private providers by First Steps in the 2017–2018 school year were also largely delivered separately. First Steps and SCDE did not collaborate at a systems level to consistently offer joint or shared professional development opportunities for providers from the two different settings. Despite the lack of systematic coordination, there were some opportunities for educators from private and public settings to receive joint training. For example, First Steps extended invitations to some CERDEP districts to send teachers from the public schools to the First Steps summer academy. In addition, SCDE ran trainings on the Teaching Strategies GOLD products (including B3–GOLD) that teachers from private providers and public school districts may have attended together. Key informants also indicated that teachers from both settings attended statewide conferences for ECE practitioners; the trainings at these conferences offered an opportunity for educators from different settings to learn together. In addition, there is evidence of some local, city-, county- or district-wide initiatives that fostered collaboration and shared professional development among the private and public CERDEP providers. For example, the South Carolina General Assembly provided competitive block grants to school districts through the South Carolina Community Block Grants for Education Pilot Program. The grants could have been used for developing professional development activities, implementing evidence-based interventions and innovative practices, or both (South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 2017). The grants encouraged school districts to collaborate with private preschool providers, and were awarded based on a competitive process managed by the EOC. As an example, in fiscal years 2015–2016 and 2016–2017, the EOC awarded funds to the Spartanburg Consortia, comprised of two school districts (Spartanburg 3 and Spartanburg 7); the Spartanburg Academic Movement, a local educational nonprofit; and Spartanburg County First Steps (the local chapter of the statewide First Steps). One goal of the Spartanburg Consortia was to create a partnership between the districts and Spartanburg County First Steps, and to foster a shared professional development and quality monitoring system between the public and private 4K settings in the county (D’Amico et al., 2018). However, our review suggests that few of the other grants awarded through the General Assembly funding mechanism were used to establish shared professional development opportunities between public and private CERDEP providers. Given that the large majority of teachers in public and private settings likely do not experience any shared professional development, it’s useful to compare and contrast the experience of educators across the two settings. We focus again on the three main forms of professional development discussed—workshops, coaching, and credit-bearing courses—as well
39 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] as the primary organizations offering the professional development. Table 3.2 presents a summary of this comparison and rest of the section describes these in more detail.
Workshops and Training Our review indicates that like most ECE settings, both OELL and First Steps offered a number of discrete workshop-style trainings. OELL offered trainings throughout the year; First Steps front-loads its trainings during the week-long teacher academy, and offers regional professional trainings throughout the year. Teachers in both public and private settings had access to trainings on a range of overlapping topics; both OELL and First Steps focused on supporting educators’ ability to implement high-quality language and literacy practices while also addressing other such topics as health and safety and parent engagement. That said, it is not clear how consistent the content or its delivery is across trainings. To our knowledge, no clear established guidance is provided on what content must be covered beyond the topic areas listed in the CERDEP and DSS licensure legislation (e.g., child growth and development, health and safety). Similarly, no guidance is available at the state level on how or when trainings or workshops should be delivered. For example, a CERDEP teacher in a private center may have received all health and safety trainings during the First Steps teacher academy to satisfy the requirement, whereas a public CERDEP provider teacher may have received trainings in that domain throughout the school year. This type of variation in content, timing, and delivery mechanisms also existed between local school districts, private providers, and even between individual teachers.
Table 3.2. Summary of Professional Development Offerings for Public and Private CERDEP Providers
Professional Development Features Public School Districts Private Providers Primary organizations • OELL • First Steps offering professional • Individual districts • State ECE conferences development • State ECE conferences Workshops and trainings • Offered throughout the year on • Offered throughout the year on many topics many topics Coaching and mentoring • Coaching offered; focused on • Coaching offered: used BLOOM the ELLCO framework • OELL offered coaching once • First Steps offered twice annually to some staff only monthly • Access to school-based literacy coaches Credit-bearing courses • Not officially part of offerings • Not officially part of offerings • An estimated 36 percent of lead teachers are working toward a four-year university degree SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of CERDEP documents and key informant interviews. 40 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Our review suggests that there may have been more variation in the training and workshop experiences among teachers in public settings as compared with teachers in private settings. OELL informants indicated the districts had a great deal of local control and administered many district-specific trainings for their educators. While SCDE also administered statewide and regional trainings for educators, teachers’ district-specific experiences may have differed across locales. By contrast, teachers from different private providers may have experienced more consistent professional development opportunities, given that First Steps’ offerings were fairly standardized (e.g., one annual summer academy for all teachers and standard regional professional development days). While individual private providers may have offered additional trainings to their teachers, this was not common practice. However, even with the standard First Steps offerings, teachers had the freedom to select specific opportunities (for example, not all teachers attended all of the same sessions at the summer academy); thus, there was certainly variation in the professional development experiences of teachers in private settings as well.
Coaching and Mentoring Both private and public CERDEP providers had access to coaching and mentoring opportunities, but models differed across settings. Staff from OELL and First Steps engaged in quality monitoring and coaching visits with public and private providers, respectively. In public settings, the OELL coaching visits were guided by a language and literacy classrooms observation tool and focused on creating plans and goals to improve teachers’ practice. The visits happened once annually, and not all classrooms received a visit in the 2017–2018 school year. All public schools also employed literacy coaches who may have worked with CERDEP teachers on their classroom practice. In the private setting, First Steps regional coordinators used the BLOOM model to support coaching visits for private providers, focused on goal-setting and reflective practice. First Steps visits were intended to take place twice monthly, though this desired dosage may not have been achieved consistently. As such, the prescribed coaching visits are higher for teachers in private settings than in public settings. However, teachers in public settings may have had access to school-based literacy coaches who may have provided continued support. Note that due to a lack of data, it is not clear if 100 percent of teachers received coaching services. For example, in public settings, 40 percent of classrooms received coaching visits, but some teachers may have received additional coaching services from district-based literacy coaches. In the most recent annual preschool report for the 2016–2017 school year, NIEER indicated that CERDEP, as a program, met the benchmark requirement for staff professional development, meaning teachers were required to complete 15 hours of professional development, some of which required coaching and mentoring. In addition, teachers must have had an individual professional development plan. We believe that South Carolina was designated as meeting this standard because of the coaching services provided. However, our review suggests
41 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] that some CERDEP teachers’ professional development experiences may not have met this benchmark in the 2017–2018 school year.
Credit-Bearing Courses Neither SCDE nor First Steps included credit-bearing courses as an official component of their professional development offerings in the 2017–2018 school year. Thirty-six percent of teachers in private settings had not yet earned a BA, and were required to show documentation that they were making progress toward a four-year college or university degree. All teachers in public settings had earned a BA, and thus were not held to this requirement. This contrast suggests that a higher percentage of teachers in private settings may have been enrolled in credit- bearing courses; however, there is no available data to confirm this hypothesis.
Professional Development Tracking and Documentation in CERDEP While South Carolina does not have an ECE workforce registry that tracks teacher education levels and employment, the statewide South Carolina Center for Child Care Career Development (CCCCD) is mandated by the state to track teachers’ participation in professional development opportunities. CCCCD is a statewide organization that manages and tracks professional development opportunities for all DSS-licensed child care providers in the state, including (but not limited to) CERDEP providers. CCCCD’s primary role is to certify trainers, register and approve trainings, keep a calendar of registered trainings that are submitted to CCCCD, and administer a system that allows teachers to track their participation in approved trainings. CCCCD provides some professional development for trainers, some of whom may be child care providers; but CCCCD generally does not provide professional development targeted to child care teachers (CERDEP teachers, or teachers in other ECE settings). CCCCD also tracks teachers’ receipt of state-specific South Carolina ECE credentials. To meet the CERDEP- and DSS-required 15 hours per year of professional development, it is up to each individual teacher to track their hours and ensure sufficient documentation. CCCCD has an online transcript system that tracks teachers’ participation in trainings. In order for a professional development or learning opportunity to count towards the CERDEP and DSS 15- hour requirements, workshops or training sessions must be approved by CCCCD (SCDE, undated-a). CCCCD registers and approves trainings that take a variety of different forms, including in-person trainings, conference sessions, online trainings, college courses, webinars, and specialized or out-of-state trainings. Typically, CCCCD reviews and approves trainings in one of two ways. First, a certified trainer can submit a workshop or course proposal to CCCCD.19 During the review process, CCCCD ensures that the professional development
19 Certified trainers are individuals who have met CCCCD’s educational and experience requirements to be a trainer and have completed the certification process, which includes an application to verify their experience. 42 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] activity content meets DSS requirements (e.g., the workshop or course covers content areas required for DSS licensure). The OELL and First Steps workshops described earlier are typically administered by certified trainers and sent to CCCCD for approval prior to the training. At these certified trainings, attendance sheets are collected and submitted directly to CCCCD following the training. All attendees are then logged in the online system as having participated in the training. Similarly, the trainings offered at statewide early childhood conferences are also preapproved by CCCCD. An electronic bar code, or “sticker” system, is used to track and record teachers’ participation at individual sessions. Individual teachers can also submit professional development activities they engaged in, outside of OELL or First Steps workshops, to CCCCD for approval. For example, a teacher who attends an out-of-state conference can complete the CCCCD review process, which requires submitting documentation of the training content and proof of completion. If the training is approved, CCCCD’s system will log the teacher’s participation. CCCCD provides an online portal for teachers to download their personal transcripts, in which they track the trainings they attended and the number of professional hours they completed in a given calendar year. The transcript also provides documentation of hours completed over time, with tracking going back to 2002. CCCCD only tracks professional development attendance that is submitted by teachers, trainers, or training companies. If a teacher reaches his or her 15 hours via OELL or SCDE preapproved trainings, he or she may or may not submit other trainings or workshops that he or she attended to be tracked through CCCCD’s system. Teachers are not required to submit all professional development activities in which they participate. That is, CCCCD’s system serves a mechanism through which teachers can demonstrate that they have met the CERDEP and DSS professional development requirements, but it is not necessarily a comprehensive record of all the professional development activities that teachers complete. CCCCD does not actively monitor teachers’ training records. So, if a teacher does not complete the required 15 hours, the system does not issue a warning or alert an administrator. Rather, teachers are responsible for printing their transcript as proof of their training hours, and storing the transcripts so their local administrators can show DSS and CERDEP compliance to licensing monitors and other stakeholders. (DSS licensing monitors can also view employee transcripts when completing compliance visits.) Indeed, the database is designed to facilitate the production of these transcripts, but is not designed for large-scale analysis. With the current professional development tracking system, CCCCD staff can run global reports on topics such as the number teachers who attended trainings within a given year, or how many trainings were offered.
43 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
CERDEP Professional Development and Best Practices in the Field We now turn back to back to the earlier review of best practices in professional development for ECE practitioners. How do CERDEP’s professional development opportunities from the 2017–2018 school year compare with features articulated by Zaslow and colleagues (U.S. Department of Education, 2010)? Table 3.3 summarizes the degrees to which CERDEP’s professional development opportunities do or do not meet these features. We list each of the features and provide a brief discussion of how CERDEP opportunities measure up, based on the available information. Professional development opportunities are content- or instructionally specific. Based on our review, CERDEP professional development opportunities were intended to be content- and instructionally specific. We reviewed descriptions of available professional development sessions, most of which had a specific content focus. In addition, CCCCD’s review process for professional development opportunities requires that training courses focus on the topic areas identified in the CERDEP legislation. However, there was no comprehensive database with detailed information—e.g., goals, objectives, materials—on all CERDEP professional development offerings across both private and public settings. In the absence of observing professional development opportunities, or reviewing materials used in the trainings, it is not possible to determine whether the sessions were focused and instructionally specific.
Table 3.3. Summary of CERDEP’s Alignment with Best Practices in Professional Development
Met by Professional Development Feature CERDEP
Professional development opportunities are content- or instructionally specific Unable to determine
Teachers are provided with individualized training or coaching Met
Teachers within the same classroom or center participate in the same professional Likely met development opportunities
Intensity and duration of opportunities matter, and should be aligned with professional Somewhat development goals met
Professional development opportunities are aligned with educators’ ability to conduct Met child assessments in the appropriate domains
State or other organizational standards should be considered when designing Somewhat professional development opportunities met
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education (2010); authors’ analysis of CERDEP documents and key informant interviews.
44 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Teachers are provided with individualized training or coaching. Teachers in both public and private CERDEP settings had the opportunity to receive individualized coaching, though the coaching model and dosage differed between private and public settings. Teachers within the same classroom or center participate in the same professional development opportunities. Based on our review, CERDEP trainings were not necessarily designed to ensure that teachers from the same classroom, center, or school attend the same trainings. Indeed, individual teachers were able to meet their 15-hour requirement however they wished. However, given that many of the OELL and First Steps trainings were region- or district-specific, it is likely that teachers from the same providers or school attended many of the same trainings. Intensity and duration of opportunities matter and should be aligned with professional development goals. CERDEP coaching opportunities may be one way in which individual professional development opportunities were designed to match teachers’ needs and goals through sustained mentorship and support. Zaslow and colleagues (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) also indicate that sustained, intensive professional development sessions, as opposed to short, individual workshops sessions, tend to be more effective in changing teacher practice. Our review suggests that some workshops offered to CERDEP teachers fell into the latter category; these trainings may not follow best practices. As such, some of CERDEP’s professional development opportunities met this practice, and some did not. Professional development opportunities are aligned with educators’ ability to conduct child assessments in the appropriate domains. Both OELL and First Steps offered a number of trainings focused exclusively on building educators’ skills to conduct child assessments. State or other organizational standards should be considered when designing professional development opportunities. CERDEP legislation offers a set of topics that CERDEP professional development must focus on. In addition, CCCCD’s review and approval process ensures that all trainings meet established standards. However, our review indicates that there was likely large variation in the professional development experiences of teachers in private and public settings. Without more systematic data on the specific professional development opportunities teachers are engaged in, it is difficult to determine how variable professional development experiences were across teachers. More consistency across trainings would ensure that all teachers are receiving similar messages and building similar competences. As such, standards were used when designing CERDEP professional development opportunities, meeting the best practice, but more consistency across CERDEP trainings is needed.
45 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] 4. Key Findings and Policy Recommendations
CERDEP is one South Carolina’s largest investments in supporting the development of low- income children. To maximize this investment, it is critical that the educators who make up the CERDEP workforce build and maintain the skills needed to promote children’s learning. Effective professional development for CERDEP teachers is one way to achieve this goal. In this report, we analyzed two aspects of teachers’ professional development experiences: 1) teachers’ preservice education levels, and 2) in-service professional development opportunities. In this final chapter we review key findings from our analysis and present policy recommendations for CERDEP stakeholders.
Key Findings
Teacher Education Levels and Child Outcomes We found that approximately two-thirds of CERDEP teachers in private providers had a BA or higher in the 2017–2018 school year. Despite the fact that only an AA was required, most teachers in private CERDEP providers had completed a four-year college degree. The remaining 36 percent of teachers who reported having an AA were required to be enrolled in a four-year college degree program. At the provider level, some or all CERDEP teachers had a BA at 64 percent of the centers; 70 percent of CERDEP children were served by these providers. When looking across all CERDEP children in both private and public settings, we estimate that approximately 94 percent of children were taught by a BA-level teacher. We conducted statistical analyses to explore whether children who attended providers where all teachers had a BA were more likely to meet or exceed age-level expectations on the B3– GOLD end of year assessment compared with children who attended a provider where only some or no teachers had a BA, controlling for key child and CERDEP provider characteristics. We found no evidence of any differences in children’s B3–GOLD scores based on teachers’ levels of education. That is, all children, regardless of the share of teachers in the provider who had a BA, were equally likely to meet or exceed age-level expectations at the end of 4K.
Comparing Professional Development Offerings for Teachers in Private Providers and Public School Districts Both SCDE and First Steps reported that, in the 2017–2018 school year, 100 percent of CERDEP teachers met the 15 hours per year professional development requirement. Teachers in both private and public CERDEP settings had access to a number of different professional development opportunities to meet this requirement. OELL and First Steps offer separate
47 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] professional development opportunities to teachers in the two settings, with few opportunities for the teachers in the two settings to engage in shared learning opportunities. Both teachers in public school districts and private providers had access to many workshops and trainings throughout the year on a range of different topics, including the development of children’s language and literacy skills, implementing child assessments, the South Carolina Early Learning Standards, and ECE curriculum. Workshops and trainings represented the bulk of the professional development opportunities that First Steps and OELL offered. It is likely that most teachers in private providers received the majority of their professional development from state- or region-wide First Steps workshops. By contrast, teachers from public school districts likely took part in both statewide OELL trainings as well as local district- or school-specific workshops. Both OELL and First Steps included opportunities for teachers to receive coaching, though the coaching models and dosage differed across the two settings. Credit-bearing courses were not the focus of either OELL’s or First Steps’ offerings.
Professional Development Tracking and Data CCCCD provides the primary systems by which CERDEP teachers track their participation in professional development. The online system allows teachers to record participation in CCCCD-approved training and print out individual transcripts to document their professional development hours. The system does not function as a workforce registry, and therefore does not store information on teacher education (beyond state-specific ECE credentials) or employment. In addition, the database was primarily designed to produce teacher transcripts and is not used to track trends in professional development take-up across CERDEP settings.
CERDEP and Best Practices in Professional Development Our review suggests that CERDEP’s professional development offerings met some but not all best practices for ECE professional development. For example, CERDEP teachers had access to coaching services and trainings that focused on implementing child assessments. In addition, teachers from the same classroom, provider, or school were likely to attend similar trainings. However, it was not possible to determine from the available documentation the extent to which CERDEP trainings are instructionally specific, a feature of effective ECE professional development. Best practices also suggest that sustained, long-term professional development is more likely to lead to changes in teacher practices than the standalone workshops characteristic of some CERDEP professional development.
Policy Recommendations and Considerations Given these findings, we make several policy recommendations to CERDEP stakeholders. For each recommendation, we note the key policy considerations, focusing on how they relate to 48 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] an ECE workforce professional-development system—the compilation of the organizations, services, infrastructure, and supports that help to ensure that members of the ECE workforce develop and maintain their skills. In Chapter 1, we framed this study with a discussion of the four key components of an effective ECE workforce professional development system: 1) attention toward defining competencies, establishing teachers’ credentials, and developing a career ladder; 2) outreach and access to professional development opportunities; 3) data systems and other infrastructure supports; and 4) financial incentives and resources (Karoly, 2012). A complete review of the components of South Carolina’s ECE workforce professional- development system was outside of the scope of this report. However, our review of teacher education and professional development opportunities available to CERDEP teachers and the recommendations that follow are relevant for advancing several of the key features of a statewide ECE workforce professional-development system. Broadly, we recommend that CERDEP leaders and other ECE stakeholders continue to build and strengthen the existing system components; indeed, each of the recommendations that follows addresses a different aspect of an effective professional development system. Recommendation 1: Convene CERDEP stakeholders to discuss teacher education requirements. SCDE and First Steps should hold one or more convenings with key CERDEP stakeholders to discuss teacher education requirements and the potential advantages and drawbacks of raising the requirement to a BA for all teachers, in both public and private settings. Discussions should take into account that, in the 2017–2018 school year, the majority of teachers in private settings had already earned a BA, 70 percent of children served in private settings attended a provider where at least one teacher had a BA, and over 90 percent of all CERDEP children (in both private and public settings) had a teacher with a four-year college degree. Stakeholders should consider that when looking across the literature and the findings presented here, there is little rigorous evidence to suggest a relationship between teacher education and child outcomes. However, it is also important to consider the current movement in the field to professionalize the CERDEP workforce though increased education requirements. Changing the teacher education requirement may have implications for multiple aspects of the ECE workforce professional-development system. For example, if all teachers must earn a BA prior to working in CERDEP classrooms, there may be more demand for BA degree programs in the early childhood field. Institutions of higher education and workforce training programs must be prepared to train preservice teachers with clearly defined competencies and skills that the teachers must master, and must offer related degree programs. The costs associated with changing the teacher education requirements should be considered as well. As indicated in our companion report (Karoly and Gomez, 2019), programs that require teachers to have a BA typically cost more, in part due to the higher teacher salaries required for more highly trained teachers. A BA requirement may also increase state-level costs for an ECE workforce professional-development system, to the extent that the public sector subsidizes the 49 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] cost for the ECE workforce to acquire four-year degrees and the cost to maintain high-quality teacher preparation programs. CERDEP stakeholders must identify funding sources to make such a change sustainable. In the meantime, or if the policy does not change, First Steps should consider tracking the postsecondary enrollment and degree attainment of teachers who enter the workforce with only an AA at a systems level. Currently, the information is stored locally with regional coordinators. Doing this would allow program stakeholders to understand how long it takes teachers to earn a four-year degree, and in what coursework they are engaged while serving CERDEP children. Tracking teachers’ degree attainment could be done in a workforce registry (see recommendation 2). Recommendation 2: Build on CCCCD’s current database to establish a comprehensive statewide workforce registry system. CCCCD offers the beginning of a comprehensive data system that can serve as a foundation for collecting more information on teacher education and professional development. A first step toward such a system would involve convening stakeholders from across the South Carolina ECE landscape to discuss the need for and goals of a potential statewide data system for all ECE providers. Stakeholders may consider designing a statewide workforce registry that tracks multiple teacher characteristics including teacher education levels, degrees and credentials, employment history, and teacher participation in in-service professional development including workshops, training, coaching, and credit-bearing courses. It is often effective to incentivize or require teachers to enroll in the system and record all professional development, not simply the activities that may count toward CERDEP and DSS requirements. In addition, designing the system in such a way that data stored within can be used from multiple purposes—such as verifying that teacher education and professional development requirements are met, and analyzing statewide trends in the workforce—will maximize the registry’s utility. The registry can also act as a repository for thorough descriptions of professional development opportunities offered throughout the state, for indicating which offerings can count toward the annual requirement, and for certifying the trainers, coaches, and mentors who deliver them—similar to the functions CCCCD already serves. Establishing such a system would allow CERDEP and state preschool leaders to see where gaps may exist in professional development opportunities, to ensure teachers and directors are meeting education requirements, and to determine if certain patterns emerge around professional development, teacher or director education, or other key provider characteristics. As described in the companion cost report (and in Appendices A and C), CERDEP is not the only 4K or ECE program in the state. Implementing such a registry will require collaboration across all the state’s ECE services and would be an important step toward creating a comprehensive data resource for the state. Indeed, key stakeholders from CCCCD indicated that it is in the middle of plans to create a statewide ECE registry that will store much of the data recommended here. An effective registry will meet the needs of and be appropriate for all ECE 50 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] providers, including but not limited to CERDEP providers. We recommend that the current leaders of the registry initiative take into account the needs of the full ECE landscape statewide as they build their system. Finally, as is true for all recommendations, funding considerations must be addressed. National reviews of state and local ECE workforce registries suggest that locales access many different funding sources to support workforce registries including federal dollars—e.g., the Child Care Development Funds Block Grants and funds from the U.S. Department of Education—as well as local dollars (National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning, undated). Recommendation 3: Provide more specific professional development guidelines to ensure that content is consistent and instructionally specific. Develop a set of common competencies that all CERDEP teachers must master. Offer more shared professional development offerings across private and public CERDEP providers to support teachers in building these competencies. In order to ensure that providers are receiving consistent content, dosage, and intensity of professional development offerings, consider implementing more specific guidelines or requirements that specify exactly what a professional development activity should entail. For example, instead of providing broad professional development content areas in CERDEP legislation—e.g., child development and curricula in general—the state could require professional development in more specific areas, such as the CERDEP-approved ECE curricula, and require a specific dosage aligned with the importance or complexity of the topic. The professional development guidelines should also include or be developed alongside a core set of skills and competencies that all CERDEP teachers need. Clearly defined competencies are a key component of a professional development system that will help ensure that all teachers have the skills need to be effective educators of young children. CERDEP professional development opportunities can then be designed around helping teachers develop and maintain these skills. While the literature suggests there are a number of skills that are likely important for all educators of young children (NASEM, 2015), public school districts and private providers are different settings that serve different populations of children with different needs. A one-size-fits-all professional development plan may not make sense for all teachers in all settings. CERDEP stakeholders may endeavor to identify high-level skills and competencies and professional development opportunities required for all teachers, while also providing flexibility and more specific requirements for teachers within particular settings. CCCCD currently works with South Carolina’s technical colleges to offer ECE credentials to educators who complete predetermined courses on ECE topics. CERDEP and other ECE leaders may consider additional partnerships with institutions of higher education and other training organizations to ensure teachers have the opportunity to build these competencies and advance in the field. Currently there is no publicly available repository that documents, in detail, the content and goals of the all the professional development opportunities offered to teachers. If CERDEP 51 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] continues to allow providers to count local trainings and non-OELL and non-First Steps opportunities toward professional development requirements, a comprehensive tracking system that provides extensive detail on what the professional development opportunity entailed should be established. Information of this nature could be stored in a statewide registry (see recommendation 2). Tracking more detailed information about professional development opportunities will allow leaders to better understand what teachers are experiencing and whether the opportunities are instructionally specific and aligned with CERDEP professional development goals and competencies. Further, OELL and First Steps should consider forming partnerships to offer shared professional development opportunities for teachers from public and private settings. Doing so would help to ensure that regardless of the settings, all teachers have a similar set of competencies and skills. Indeed, in early 2019, South Carolina was awarded a federal Preschool Development Grant Birth through Five (PDG B–5) grant. The funds from this grant are designed to support the quality of state-level ECE systems. South Carolina’s PDG B-5 funds may help to solidify collaboration across all CERDEP providers. Plans for the grant include more shared professional development opportunities across CERDEP settings and other ECE programs in the state, such as Head Start and other publicly funded 4K programs. Recommendation 4: Work to provide more sustained and long-term professional development opportunities. A key component of a professional development system is access to and outreach promoting professional learning opportunities. Our review indicated that CERDEP teachers had access to a number of in-service professional development activities. However, some of the professional opportunities First Steps and OELL provided were discrete professional development workshops. Stakeholders should work to provide more long-term and sustained professional development opportunities that allow teachers to build new skills over time. OELL and First Steps might consider employing evidence-based professional development interventions that combine multiple forms of support—trainings, coaching, and peer networks—into one aligned model over the course of a full school year. These types of interventions may increase the quality of the learning opportunities teachers have access to in the professional development system and may be more likely to have a positive effect on teacher practices and classroom quality. OELL and First Steps can consider ways to make these approaches systematic by requiring that teachers participate and offering these interventions to all teachers across public and private settings. Professional development opportunities of this nature may be more costly than shorter, workshop-based trainings. CERDEP stakeholders will need to consider available funding sources for such opportunities. As described in the section on Georgia’s 4K program, some states make use of federal dollars to supplement state and local professional development dollars. Stakeholders might also consider incentivizing CERDEP providers to use existing funding sources, such as the South Carolina Community Block Grants for Education Pilot Program, to employ evidence-based professional development interventions. 52 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Recommendation 5: Document CERDEP providers’ receipt of coaching to ensure all teachers receive individualized support. Coaching can be an effective professional learning support offered as part of an ECE workforce professional development system. While both OELL and First Steps implemented coaching as part of their professional development offerings, there is limited data on teachers’ receipt of coaching support, including the number of visits or hours of coaching received. The coaching dosage likely varied between public and private settings and across teachers within settings. Stakeholders may consider setting a standard coaching dosage for all CERDEP teachers and tracking coaching hours to ensure all teachers receive adequate support. Some teachers, particularly those in public school districts, may have access to other non-CERDEP coaching services. OELL and First Steps should consider tracking teachers’ receipt of all coaching services and work to ensure that any CERDEP-sponsored coaching is aligned with and complementary to the other coaching supports teachers might receive.
53 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Appendix A. CERDEP History and Program Features20
In this appendix, we present a more-detailed review of CERDEP than is included in the body of the report. This information will be useful to readers relatively unfamiliar with the program, or readers looking for a complete compilation of CERDEP information as of the publishing of this report. Specifically we cover the program’s history, key features and requirements, program enrollment, and evaluation literature.21
Program History CERDEP has its roots in the 2005 State Supreme Court ruling in Abbeville v. the State of South Carolina. The case began in 1993, when 40 South Carolina school districts (approximately 50 percent of the state’s districts at the time) challenged the state’s education-funding formula (Click and Hinshaw, 2014; Weiler, 2007). Specifically, the districts argued that the formula, based primarily on local property taxes, disadvantaged rural and low-income communities. Over the next decade, the case travelled in and out of the state’s lower circuit courts and the state supreme court. Beginning in July 2003, arguments for an appeal of the case were heard in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, and in a 2005 opinion, the court ruled in favor of both the plaintiff districts and the state. In sum, the opinion articulated that there was “nothing wrong with the ‘inputs’ into education or the funding formula provided for local education, or the revenues allocated by the state for public education” (Weiler, 2007, p. 9), except for the poor funding provided for ECE. While many saw the overall ruling as a loss for South Carolina public education,22 given that no changes were made to the core K–12 funding formula, the ruling was a win for early childhood services. Following this ruling, the South Carolina General Assembly, the state’s legislative body, established the Child Development Education Pilot Program, a state- funded early childhood education program in low-income districts in the state. The program was
20 The content of this appendix is taken, largely verbatim, from the companion report (Karoly and Gomez, 2019). 21 This section draws heavily from the following citations: Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018; EOC, 2017, 2018; SCDE, 2018a, 2018b; First Steps, 2018a, 2018b. 22 The 2005 ruling was not the final ruling in the Abbeville case. In 2014, an additional ruling came down from South Carolina’s State Supreme Court stating that indeed the funding formulas were flawed, and failed to provide “minimally adequate” education—the court’s interpretation of the state constitution’s education clause—to all South Carolina children. Following this ruling, the South Carolina General Assembly was tasked with remedying the funding formula. As part of this effort, the assembly conducted assessments of education facilities and buildings, and provided $55.8 million for capital improvement projects in the plaintiff school districts. However, in November 2017, the 2014 ruling was vacated by the South Carolina State Supreme Court, meaning that the General Assembly was no longer responsible for altering school funding regulation. The primary argument for the new ruling was that the 2014 decision and the courts’ attempts to influence education-funding legislation was an overreach of judicial power (Gilreath, 2017). 55 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] signed into state law in 2014 by the Read to Succeed Act and renamed CERDEP (South Carolina General Assembly, 2014). By law, the program must serve children from low-income families in the states’ poorest districts, and focus on reading and school readiness. Specifically, the law mandates that programs must provide: “(1) a comprehensive, systemic approach to reading that follows the State Reading Proficiency Plan and the district’s comprehensive annual reading proficiency plan, (2) successful administration of the readiness assessment; (3) the developmental and learning support that children must have to be ready for school; (4) parenting education, including educating the parents as to methods that may assist the child; and (5) identification of community and civic organizations that can support early literacy efforts” (SCDE, undated-a).
CERDEP Features and Requirements CERDEP is implemented using a mixed-delivery system with both public school districts and licensed private center–based providers able to serve eligible children. Oversight of the public district-based programs is provided by SCDE, while First Steps oversees implementation at private center–based providers. To be eligible to implement CERDEP districts must have a score of 70 percent or higher on the state poverty index.23 These CERDEP-eligible districts may opt in or out of establishing CERDEP classrooms. Private providers may be located anywhere in the state, including in districts that do not meet the 70-percent poverty threshold. All children served by the program in either private or public settings must meet the criteria described below. Table A.1 presents a summary of CERDEP’s characteristics. NIEER has developed a set of quality indicators, or benchmarks, for state preK programs. In the 2017 State Preschool Yearbook, NIEER revised and released the following ten new benchmarks for quality (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018): • Benchmark 1. Early Learning and Development Standards • Benchmark 2. Curriculum supports • Benchmark 3. Teacher degree • Benchmark 4. Teacher specialized training • Benchmark 5. Assistant teacher degree • Benchmark 6. Staff professional development • Benchmarks 7 and 8. Maximum class size and staff-child ratio
23 The poverty index is determined by the South Carolina Office of Revenue and Fiscal and is calculated based on the percentage of students and families in a district enrolled in Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Department of Social Services Foster Care. 56 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table A.1. CERDEP Features in Private and Public Providers, and Corresponding NIEER Quality Benchmarks
Program Applicable (New) Meets Feature CERDEP Requirements NIEER Standard Standarda Child /family Child must be 4 by September 1 and family must have (a) None – eligibility income at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or (b) be Medicaid eligible Licensing Must be licensed by the South Carolina Department of None – Social Services Service options • Traditional year: 180 days; 6.5 hours /day None – • Extended day: 180 days; up to 8.5 hours /day • Extended year: up to 220 days; 6.5–8.5 hours /day • Summer: up to 220 days; 180 days at 6.5–8.5 hours and 40 days of summer at 8.5 hours Maximum class 20 children 7 and 8. Maximum Yes size and staff- 1:10 staff-child ratio class size and child ratio staff-child ratio Early learning South Carolina Early Learning Standards guide children’'s 1. Early learning Yes standards learning and development and development standards Curriculum • Big Day in Pre-K (public only) 2. Curriculum Yes • Creative Curriculum supports • High Scope • InvestiGator Club (public only)b • Montessori • World of Wonders (public only) Lead teacher Public: Bachelor’s degree 3. Teacher degree No degree Private: Associate degree (with documentation of working toward a bachelor’s) Lead teacher Public: Teaching certificate in early childhood 4. Teacher Yes specialization in Private: Associate degree in early childhood, a CDA, or specialized early childhood other specialized ECE training training Instructional High school degree 5. Assistant No assistant degree teacher degree Kindergarten All children must be assessed at the start and end of the None – readiness year by an approved reading assessment: assessments • Individual Growth and Development Indicators Early Literacy (public only) • PALS–Pre-K (public only) • Teaching Strategies GOLD Screenings and No requirements; health and developmental screenings 9. Screenings and No referrals recommended referrals Teacher PD 15 hours of PD for teachers 6. Staff PD Yes Monitoring/CQI Regular monitoring and structured classroom observations 10. CQI system Yes system NOTES: CQI = continuous quality improvement. a As determined by NIEER (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018). b Curriculum approved for the 2018–2019 school year only. SOURCES: Friedman-Krauss et al., 2018; EOC, 2017, 2018; SCDE, 2018a, 2018b; First Steps, 2018a, 2018b.
57 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
• Benchmark 9. Screenings and referrals • Benchmark 10. Continuous Quality Improvement System. In the final two columns of Table A.1, we indicate, where relevant, the corresponding NIEER standard and whether the CERDEP features meet the applicable benchmark (as determined by NIEER’s analysis of data from the 2016–2017 school year). As of 2016–2017, CERDEP met seven of ten quality metrics. In comparison to other states, meeting seven benchmarks puts South Carolina in the middle to the high end of the distribution in the 2016–2017 school year (the most recent with comprehensive data). Only three states—Michigan, Alabama, and Rhode Island— meet all ten, while five states met nine. Ten states met fewer than half of the benchmarks. To be eligible for CERDEP, children living within CERDEP-eligible districts must have reached age four on or before September 1 and meet one of the following criteria: (1) have family income at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines or (2) be eligible for Medicaid. Families can choose to apply for a CERDEP slot in either a district or a private provider. Across both public and private settings, all CERDEP providers are required to be licensed by the Division of Early Care and Education in the South Carolina Department of Social Services. All programs must operate for at least 180 school days, five days a week, with at least 6.5 hours of instruction per day—or the traditional school year service option. In the 2017–2018 school year, the General Assembly made additional funds available to expand CERDEP offerings. CERDEP sites had the option of three different expansions which included: extended day—180 days per year and up to 8.5 hours of instruction per day; extended year—up to 220 days per year and 6.5–8.5 hours of instruction per day; and summer—up to 220 days per year total with 180 days of 6.5–8.5 hours during the school year and 40 days of a summer program with up to 8.5 hours of instruction per day.24 In Table A.2, we present the distribution of chosen service options across the public school districts and private providers in the 2017–2018 school year. Approximately 15 and 30 percent of private providers and districts, respectively, administered one or more CERDEP classrooms with the traditional year. The majority of school districts and private providers (about 60 percent each) opted into the summer program option. The extended day and extended year were the least frequently adopted options. As discussed in more detail in the full report, each service option is associated with a different per-pupil reimbursement rate. For all service options, the staff-child ratio within a classroom cannot exceed 1:10, and classrooms with more than 11 children are
24 First Steps and SCDE defined the extended year and summer options differently. As defined by SCDE, the public school districts had the option of between 6.5-8.5 hours of instruction per day for extended year, while the private providers who implemented the extended-year option capped their hours at 6.5 (as defined by First Steps). Similarly, for the summer option, public schools had the option of between 6.5-8.5 hours of instruction for the 180 days of the school year, and 8.5 hours of instruction for the 40 day summer program. The private providers who implemented the summer option implemented only 6.5 hours only during the school year and 8.5 hours per day of summer instruction. 58 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table A.2. CERDEP Service Options for Participating Districts and Private Providers in 2017–2018
Districts Private Providers
Service Option N Percent N Percent Traditional year 18 29.5 29 14.7 Extended day 0 0.0 32 16.2 Extended year 6 9.8 25 12.7 Summer 37 60.7 117 59.4 SOURCES: SCDE, 2018a; First Steps, 2018a. NOTES: There were a total of 197 private providers across the state and 61 districts implementing. CERDEP in 2017–2018. A total of five private providers implemented multiple service options (different classrooms implemented different service options). We count these providers in each of the service option totals they offered. Therefore, the totals across the private provider service options to not add up to a total of 197 providers or 100 percent. required to have at least one lead teacher and one instructional assistant. In 2017, South Carolina's Division of Early Care and Education in the Department of Social Services and the SCDE’s Office of Early Learning and Literacy worked together to develop the South Carolina Early Learning Standards (DSS, 2018b). A number of other stakeholders, including First Steps and early childhood researchers at the University of South Carolina, were also involved in the effort. The document serves as universal guide for the state of the development and learning of young children ages birth to five. All CERDEP providers are required to align their programming with the standards. In addition to using the South Carolina Early Learning Standards, programs are required to use an approved, research-based curriculum. In the 2017– 2018 school year, the approved curricula for school districts were Big Day in Pre-K (published by Houghton Harcourt), Creative Curriculum (published by Teaching Strategies), High Scope (published by High Scope), World of Wonders (published by McGraw Hill), and the curriculum associated with Montessori programs. In the 2018–2019 school year, InvestiGator Club (published by Robert Leslie) was added to the list of approved curriculum for the districts. The approved curricula for the private centers was a smaller list, including only Creative Curriculum, the High Scope curriculum, and Montessori. Private providers also had the option to seek approval with First Steps to use an alternative curricula. All programs assess children’s literacy at the start and end of their 4K year. The districts were allowed to select among three different assessments to use: Individual Growth and Development Indicators (published by EL Labs, Inc.); the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS™) Pre-K (published by IO Education); and Teaching Strategies® GOLD™ (published by Teaching Strategies, LLC). First Steps requires all private providers to use Teaching Strategies® GOLD. CERDEP guidelines do not require programs to conduct other development or health screenings, but such services are recommended when districts and providers have the resources to do so. The requirements for teacher qualifications differ across public and private settings. In the school districts, all lead teachers are required to have a bachelor’s degree and a South Carolina 59 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] certification in early childhood education. Teacher’s assistants must have a high school degree or the equivalent, and have at least two years of experience working with children under five years old and must successfully complete or enroll in the CDA course within 12 months of being hired. In the private settings, teachers with bachelor’s degrees are preferred, but lead teachers are only required to have a two-year college degree in early childhood education, or a two-year college degree in another field with additional ECE (such as having a CDA credential). In addition, all lead teachers without a four-year degree must show evidence that they are enrolled in four-year teacher education program with an emphasis on ECE. Instructional assistants in the private setting are required to have a high school degree or equivalent and some early childhood experience. Once hired, both CERDEP and DSS regulations require that all lead teachers complete 15 hours of professional development per year. Teachers have the option to earn these hours through professional development opportunities they seek out on their own (e.g., college courses, online workshops) or by attending professional development trainings organized by First Steps (for private settings) and school districts (for public settings). CCCCD is a statewide organization that certifies and tracks CERDEP teachers’ professional development hours. CERDEP providers also engage in regular program quality monitoring and oversight activities. OELL monitors the quality of the programs in the districts. During the annual visit, OELL staff use the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation to assess classroom quality. First Steps monitors program quality for the private providers using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. The First Steps staff aims to visit all classrooms implementing CERDEP twice monthly; however, the frequency of visits varies by region. In addition to the CERDEP-mandated quality visits, the Division of Early Care and Education of the South Carolina Department of Social Services administers ABC Quality, the state’s Quality Rating Improvement System (QRIS). Neither public nor private providers implementing CERDEP are required to participate, but both are eligible if they choose to do so. In addition to receiving an annual rating (from A+, or “Surpasses” quality standards, to C, or “Meets” quality standards), participating programs receive a range of services, including staff professional development and quality assistance. In the 2016–2017 school year, over 90 percent of private CERDEP providers were enrolled in ABC Quality (EOC, 2017); the state does not collect comprehensive data on district enrollment in the QRIS.
CERDEP Enrollment In Table A.3, we present information on the number of children served by CERDEP in the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school years. Specifically, these figures represent the number of
60 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table A.3. Funded CERDEP Slots in the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 School Years by Provider Type
2016–2017 2017–2018 Number of Number of Type of Provider Slots Percent Slots Percent 83.2 9,789 83.4 Public CERDEP 9,806 Private CERDEP 2,170 18.4 1,946 16.6 Total CERDEP 11,784 100.0 11,735 100.0 SOURCE: EOC, unpublished data, undated.
CERDEP-funded slots for students.25 In 2017–2018, 64 districts were CERDEP-eligible and 61 opted into the program—approximately 74 percent of the states’ 82 total districts. Additionally, 197 private providers across the state implemented CERDEP in 2017–2018. In this school year, CERDEP served a total of 11,735 children; the large majority of children—about 83 percent— attended a CERDEP classroom in a public school district, with less than 2,000 children attending a CERDEP classroom at a private provider. Based on recent state estimates, the roughly 11,700 children served by CERDEP represented about 34 percent of all low-income children in the state at the time.26 The enrollment between 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 was fairly consistent, with only a slight drop in the number of students. Reliable enrollment data from previous years is not available due to past errors in reporting. In 2006–2007, the first year of the program, only the 34 trial and plaintiff districts from the Abbeville case—and the private providers in their catchment area—were eligible to administer CERDEP. The number of eligible districts remained constant until the 2013–2014 school year, when the General Assembly broadened the eligibility requirements to all districts with a score of 75 percent or above on the state poverty index. This change increased the number of eligible districts to 51, also increasing the number of children served. Then in the 2014–2015 school year—the year in which the program was codified in to law—the eligible criteria was changed to include districts with a poverty index of 70 percent or less, increasing the number of eligible districts to 64 and again likely increasing the number of children served. As of the 2018–2019 school year, the criteria and number of eligible districts have not changed.
The Evaluation Literature on CERDEP and State-Funded PreK in South Carolina While there has never been a causal evaluation of the effects of CERDEP on children’s literacy or school readiness outcomes, there is some evidence to suggest that state-funded ECE in
25 Due to attrition and turnover throughout the school year, the number of children who spent at least one day in a CERDEP classroom may exceed these numbers. However, reliable data does not exist on the exact number of children who held these slots is not available. 26 Based on estimates of low-income children in the state from EOC, 2018. 61 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] the state of South Carolina supports child development. In the 2004–2005 school year (two years before the pilot program that would become CERDEP was founded), South Carolina was included in a multistate evaluation of state-funded preK programs (Wong et al., 2008). At that time, the Half-Day Child Development Program was the only state-funded preK in the state. It was funded through the Education Improvement Act (EIA) with additional support from First Steps to School Readiness. At this time (like the present), children were served in both private and public settings, with the majority of children enrolled in public district–based settings. Using a quasiexperimental research design that capitalized on the child eligibility age cutoff, the evaluation estimated that South Carolina preK had a positive and significant impact on children’s print awareness but not on their receptive vocabulary (Wong et al., 2008). As described above, all CERDEP children are assessed on their literacy skills at the beginning and end of their 4K year. Descriptive analyses from 2016–2017 indicate that by the spring of that school year, over 75 percent of CERDEP children who took the cognitive assessments met or exceeded normal expectations for children in their age group (EOC, 2018). These analyses lack a research design that can confirm whether CERDEP caused children to be kindergarten-ready. However, the descriptive analyses do suggest that most children who participate in CERDEP enter kindergarten with skills on par with national norms.
62 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Appendix B. Technical Methods Details for Chapter 2
In this appendix, we detail the data and methods used to execute the statistical analyses presented in Chapter 2.
Variable Sources and Definitions We obtained data on CERDEP teachers and the available characteristics, community zip code characteristics, child characteristics, and child B3–GOLD assessments. Descriptive statistics for all provider- and child-level characteristics are presented in Table B.1 for the analytic sample, and by each provider-level teacher education category. Tables B.2 and B.3 report descriptive statistics for the B3–GOLD language and literacy scale scores and WHE scores for the beginning- and end-of-year administration, respectively.
Child Characteristics SCDE provided information on child demographic characteristics and other status measures. Child age: SCDE calculated child age in months as of September 1, 2017. (Date of assessment was not available, so child age on the date of the B3–GOLD assessment could not be calculated.) Child gender: We created a binary indicator where a value of 1 indicated the child was female, and a value of 0 indicated the child was male. Child race/ ethnicity: The coded options in the SCDE child record for race and ethnicity were 1) White, 2) Black, 3) Asian, 4) Pacific Islander, 5) Native American, 6) Hispanic, and 7) multi-race. We created binary indicators to represent child race and ethnicity, where a value of 1 indicated membership in a given racial or ethnic group, and a value of 0 indicated otherwise. The first category, non-Hispanic white, was used as the reference category in all models. Limited English proficiency: The child-level record also indicated whether a child had been identified as having limited English proficiency (LEP). We created a binary indicator for this variable where a value of 1 indicated the child had LEP, and a value of 0 indicated otherwise. As noted in Table B.1, the missingness rate for LEP was extremely high in the sample (over 90 percent). It is not clear why most children do not have this characteristic observed; however, we suspect that the necessary data are not collected well in private settings. We report this demographic characteristic for context, but do not include this variable in the subsequent statistical models due to the high level of missingness. Individualized education plan: The data indicated whether a child had received an individualized education plan (IEP). We created a binary indicator for this variable where a value of 1 indicated the child had an IEP, and a value of 0 indicated otherwise. 63 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table B.1 Descriptive Statistics for the Child and Provider Characteristics for the Analytic Sample and by Each Provider-Level Teacher Education Category
Provider-Level Teacher Education Category All Some No Total Analytic Teachers Teachers Teachers Indicator Sample Have a BA Have a BA Have a BA Child characteristics Age in months (mean, s.d.) 53.9 53.9 53.8 54.0 (3.5) (3.6) (3.5) (3.5)
Gender (percentage distribution) Male 50.9 49.8 55.5 52.3 Female 49.1 50.2 44.5 47.7
Race/ethnicity (percentage distribution) White 25.9 24.4 33.6 27.5 Black 59.7 60.5 56.4 58.8 Hispanic 4.2 4.6 0.9 4.1 Asian 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.4 Native American 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 Pacific Islander 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Multi-racial 7.1 7.8 8.2 5.2 Missing 2.0 1.4 0.0 3.7
Limited English proficient (percentage distribution) Yes 0.1 5.0 0.0 0.0 No 5.3 0.2 9.1 5.2 Missing 94.6 94.9 90.9 94.8
Individual education plan (percentage distribution) Yes 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 No 99.8 99.7 100.0 100.0
Provider characteristics Number of CERDEP teachers (mean, s.d.) 1.3 1.2 2.5 1.1 (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.2) Number of CERDEP children (mean, s.d.) 16.8 17.0 36.9 12.3 (10.5) (9.2) (16.9) (5.7) New provider in 2017–2018 (percentage) 9.5 11.5 0.0 7.1
CERDEP service option (percentage distribution) Traditional school year 12.5 12.8 0.0 14.3 Extended day 11.3 11.0 0.0 14.5 Extended year 10.3 9.3 0.0 14.7 Summer 58.1 62.4 31.8 53.8 Multiple service options within center 7.7 4.5 68.2 2.8
64 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Provider-Level Teacher Education Category All Some No Total Analytic Teachers Teachers Teachers Indicator Sample Have a BA Have a BA Have a BA
ABC Quality rating A+ 22.2 16.8 84.6 21.7 A 42.4 45.0 15.5 41.9 B+ 15.8 17.7 0.0 14.7 B 0.9 1.3 0.0 0.0 C 1.7 1.8 0.0 1.9 Missing 17.1 17.4 0.0 19.9
Provider zip code Census characteristics Adult race/ethnicity distribution (mean, s.d.) Hispanic 4.7 4.7 3.9 4.8 (3.9) (4.0) (0.6) (4.2) Non-Hispanic white 56.3 56.4 63.1 54.6 (18.1) (18.7) (4.8) (18.1) Non-Hispanic black 35.4 35 .0 30.3 37.1 (19.5) (20.3) (4.7) (19.3) Non-Hispanic Asian 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 (1.1) (1.2) (0.7) (1.1) Non-Hispanic Native American 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 (0.5) (0.6) (0.1) (0.2) Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) (0.1) Non-Hispanic Other 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 (0.2) (0.2) (0.0) (0.2) Non-Hispanic more than one race 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.8 (1.4) (1.3) (0.8) (1.8) Percentage single-headed household 34.9 35.0 33.4 35.1 (mean, s.d.) (9.9) (10.1) (2.4) (10.5) Adult education distribution (mean, s.d.) Less than a high school degree 15.3 15.0 14.9 16.0 (5.9) (6.1) (5.2) (5.4) High school degree or equivalent 31.4 31.3 29.1 32.1 (6.8) (6.2) (7.4) (7.7) Some college 30.5 30.5 29.1 30.9 (5.0) (4.6) (5.9) (5.7) BA or higher 22.9 23.3 26.9 21.1 (10.0) (9.8) (14.5) (9.2) Median family income (in thousands) 52.69 52.57 59.39 51.61 (mean, s.d.) (11.56) (11.08) 12.43) (12.00)
N 1,860 1,211 110 539 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of SCDE administrative data. NOTE: s.d. = standard deviation. If no missingness rate is listed, there were no missing values for that variable.
65 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Teacher and Provider Characteristics First Steps provided information on teacher and provider characteristics. Teacher education: For private providers, teacher education data was provided by First Steps at the teacher level for 192 centers and 211 teachers. The raw data included four categories: 1) AA with documentation that the teacher was enrolled in a 4-year degree program; 2) BA; 3) master’s degree (e.g., master of arts, master of arts in teaching, master in education); and 4) doctoral or professional degree. In this data set, a Juris Doctor—professional law degree—was the only observed response in that last category. For public school districts, teacher education data were provided by SCDE at the district level for 61 districts and 599 teachers. The education categories were: 1) BA; 2) BA, plus additional hours or specialized certification training; 3) master’s degree; 4) master’s degree, plus additional hours or specialized certification training; and 5) doctoral degree. For the purposes of these analyses, we collapsed all teacher education responses from both private providers and public school districts options into three categories: 1) AA; 2) BA; or 3) master’s degree of higher. For the private providers, we created a provider-level categorial variable that recorded the share of teachers within a center that had a BA. The variable was defined as three binary indicators: 1) all teachers had a BA; 2) some teachers had BA; and 3) no teachers had a BA. For all three indicators, a value of 1 indicated the center fell into that category; a value of 0 indicated otherwise. For all models presented here, the third category, “no teachers had a BA” was specified as the reference category. Number of CERDEP teachers: For private providers only, First Steps provided data on the number of lead teachers serving CERDEP children in each center. We included this continuous variable in our models. Number of CERDEP children: For private providers only, First Steps provided data on the number of CERDEP children in the center. We included this continuous variable in our models. New provider: For private providers only, First Steps provided data whether or not the providers were new to the CERDEP program in 2017–2018. We created a binary variable that took on a value of 1 for new providers and a value of 0 otherwise. Provider service option: For private providers only, First Steps provided data on the providers’ service option in the 2017–2018 school year, or the number of days and hours of instruction CERDEP providers offered. As described in Appendix A, there were 4 different CERDEP service options: 1) traditional year—180 school days with at 6.5 hours of instruction per day; 2) extended day—180 days per year and up to 8.5 hours of instruction per day; 3) extended year—up to 220 days per year and 6.5–8.5 hours of instruction per day; 4) summer— up to 220 days per year total with 180 days of 6.5–8.5 hours during the school year and 40 days of a summer program with up to 8.5 hours of instruction per day. Using these data, we created binary variables to records providers’ service options. We added one more category to those
66 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] listed above, “mixed options,” for providers where different classrooms within the same provider adopted different service options. For all variables, a value of 1 indicated the center fell into that category; a value of 0 indicated otherwise. For all models presented here, the first category, the traditional school year, was specified as the reference category. Child care center quality: For private providers only, child care center quality data was measured by the providers’ ABC Quality ratings, the state’s QRIS. Centers can receive one of five possible ratings from A+ to C, with an A+ indicating the highest level of quality and a C indicating the lowest level of quality. CERDEP providers are not required to be enrolled in ABC Quality. The data did not indicate whether missing value on a provider’s ABC quality rating was missing because the provider chose not to enroll, or because the rating was truly missing. First Steps provided data on providers’ ABC quality ratings for 2016–2017 school year, the year prior to when all other data were collected. Data for the 2017–2018 were not available. As part of ABC Quality, providers are rated every two years. For many programs it is likely that their 2016–2017 rating was still current in 2017–2018; however, no data exist to confirm this assumption. For the purpose of our analyses, we created binary variables for the following values 1) A+ rating; 2) A rating; 3) B+ rating; 3) B rating; 5) C rating; and 6) missing or not enrolled. For all variables, a value of 1 indicated the provider fell into that category; a value of 0 indicated otherwise. For all models presented here, the fifth category, the C rating, was specified as the reference category. County indicators: For private providers only, First Steps provided information on the county in which the providers were located. We created binary indicators for each of the counties represented in the sample, where a value of 1 indicated the providers’ county, and a value of 0 indicated otherwise.
Community Zip Code Characteristics For private providers only, we gathered zip code level characteristics from the 2017 ACS five-year estimates. Data were downloaded from ACS open source website and matched to the providers by zip code (U.S. Census Bureau,, undated). We used the following variables: • adult race/ethnicity defined as the percentage of adults 25 years or older who identified as Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic Native American, non-Hispanic Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic other, and non-Hispanic more than one race • adult education levels, defined as the percentage of adults 25 years or older who had not earned a high school degree, had a high school degree or equivalent, had attended some college, and had a BA or higher
67 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
• percentage of single adult–headed family households27 • median family income (family defined as a household with 2 or more related people)
Child B3–GOLD Assessment Data SCDE provided data on children’s literacy and language outcomes from the beginning-of- year and end-of-year administration for the 2017–2018 school year for all CERDEP students. We made use of the data for the children enrolled in private providers. Children’s language and literacy outcomes were measured by B3–GOLD. The B3–GOLD is a standardized assessment designed to measure children’s developmental skills. The measure is not a direct assessment of child skills; rather, teachers rate children’s skill levels using evidence and information gathered during classroom interactions. CERDEP teachers rate children in two of the domains covered by B3–GOLD: (1) language—including children’s ability to listen to and understand verbal language, and use verbal language and other communication skills to express thoughts; and (2) literacy—including children’s phonological awareness, phonics skills, word recognition, alphabet knowledge, print knowledge and use, ability to understand and respond to books and other texts, and writing skills. All teachers use the Teaching Strategies online platform to record their ratings; all ratings are then transferred to a central database maintained by SCDE. We made use of two different forms of children’s scores. First, we used the scale scores which are vertically scaled and normed to a mean of 500 and standard deviation of 100 (Lambert, 2017). We used the beginning-of-year scaled scores as a control variable (a pretest) in the multivariate models. We also used WHE scores, which report on whether children fall below, meet, or exceed skill level expectations for their age group (Burts, Baker, and Bickart, 2016). We created binary indicators for the language and literacy outcomes, in which a value of 1 indicated that children met or exceeded expectations, and a value of zero indicated children fell below expectations. We used the binary indicator for children’s scores as the outcome in all models. Descriptive statistics for the B3–GOLD measures are presented in Tables B.3 and B.4.
Analytic Strategy To address the second study question regarding the relationship between teacher’s levels of education and child outcomes, we fit a series of linear probability models in which we modeled the probability that a child would meet or exceed age-level expectations (versus falling below them) as a function of the provider-level teacher education variables, and the provider and child characteristics described in previous sections. The primary model was specified as:
!"# = &' + &)*+,-_/0# + &1022_/0# + &34"# + 5"# (1)
27 We created this variable by summing the total of single female headed family households and single male headed family households and dividing by total households within the zip code. 68 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table B.2. Beginning-of-Year B3–GOLD Scaled Scores and WHE Scores for the Total Analytic Sample, By Provider-Level Teacher Education Category
Provider-Level Teacher Education Category All Some No Total Analytic Teachers Teachers Teachers Indicator Sample Have a BA Have a BA Have a BA B3–GOLD: Language Scaled score (mean, standard deviation) 365.0 368.6 344.9 360.8 (75.5) (78.6) (65.3) (69.4) WHE score (percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds expectations 45.1 47.1 35.5 42.5 Below expectations 54.9 52.9 64.5 57.5 N 1,860 1,211 110 539 B3–GOLD: Literacy Scaled score (mean, standard deviation) 527.7 525.7 490.7 539.9 (78.1) (75.0) (87.1) (80.2) WHE score (percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds expectations 51.3 51.0 40.0 54.4 Below expectations 48.7 49.0 60.0 45.6 N 1,857 1,208 110 539 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of SCDE administrative data.
Table B.3. End-of-Year B3–GOLD Scaled Scores and WHE Scores for the Total Analytic Sample, By Provider-Level Teacher Education Category
Provider-Level Teacher Education Category All Some No Total Analytic Teachers Teachers Teachers Indicator Sample Have a BA Have a BA Have a BA B3–GOLD: Language Scaled score (mean, standard deviation) 460.2 462.3 456.1 456.2 (105.4) 106.2) (117.6) (101.0) WHE score (percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds expectations 85.0 86.5 82.7 82.0 Below expectations 15.0 13.5 17.3 18.0 N 1,860 1,211 110 539 B3–GOLD: Literacy Scaled score (mean, standard deviation) 635.1 637.2 607.8 636.1 (82.2) (81.7) (93.7) (79.8) WHE score (percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds expectations 90.8 90.9 86.4 91.5 Below expectations 9.2 9.1 13.6 8.5 N 1,857 1,208 110 539 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of SCDE administrative data.
69 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
In model 1, Yip is the WHE score—set to 1 for exceeds or meets expectations, or 0 for falls below—for child i in provider p. b1 represents the estimated differential in the predicted probability of a child meeting or exceeding age level expectations for children who attended centers where some teachers had a BA, as compared to centers where no teachers had a BA. b2 represents the estimated differential in the predicted probability of a child meeting or exceeding age-level expectations for children who attended centers where all teachers had a BA, as compared with centers where no teachers had a BA. 4"# represents the set of child and provider characteristics, the pretest measure, and the county indicators. eis represents an individual stochastic error term. Model 1 does not include a provider-level stochastic error term. However, we note that children are nested within providers, and it may be important to account for provider-level variation in the modeling process. To address this issue, we fit a model with robust standard errors, correcting for the nested data. We recognize that there many different analytic strategies to account for nested data. As a sensitivity analysis, we also fit a hierarchal linear model (HLM) that actively estimated the between- and within-provider variation in the outcome. We found the model results and inferences were the nearly identical in the robust standard error model we report and the alternative hierarchical linear models. In favor of simplicity, we present only the model using robust standard errors. To address the study question, we fit a series of models, progressively adding groups of controls as follows: • Model 1: includes only the teacher education variables • Model 2: includes only children’s beginning of year score and the teacher education variables • Model 3: Model 2, with the addition of the child characteristics • Model 4: Model 3, with the addition of the provider characteristics provided by First Steps • Model 6: Model 4, with the addition of the provider Zip Code characteristics from the ACS • Model 6: Model 5, with the addition of the county fixed effects • Model 7: Model 6, accounting for robust standard errors. These models are presented separately for the language and literacy outcomes in Tables B.4 and B.5, respectively. We consider Model 6 for each outcome to be our final model; we refer to the results of Model 6 in the body of the report. We conducted two sets of sensitivity analyses. First, we fit our series of models using the end-of-year scaled scores as an outcome, instead of the binary WHE scores. The scaled scores
70 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] capture more variation in the outcome and may facilitate a more precise estimate of the differences between groups. We used ordinary least squares regression to fit these models. The substantive conclusions from these models were identical those models present in Table B.4 and B.5 and thus are not presented here. We also fit our series of models using logistic regression instead of linear probability models, to ensure our results were not sensitive to the distribution of the binary outcome or out of range predictions. The logistic regression models yielded results and substantive conclusion that were no different from our primary models. As such, we have not included detailed model from the logistic regression specification here.
Missing Data Strategy Rates of missing data are presented in Table B.1 along with the demographic characteristics. Data were missing for one of the child characteristics—race/ethnicity—and one of the provider characteristics—ABC Quality rating. In an effort to include all children with beginning-of-year and end-of-year data, we employed a “missing data indicator” strategy and created such an indicator for all the controls. That is, we created a binary indicator for each control variable with missing values in which a value of 1 indicated a missing value on the control variable, and a value of 0 indicated that the control variable was observed. Essentially, the missing data indicators allow us to treat the fact that the observations are missing data on some variables as useful information that could explain variation in the outcome. Given that we had only a limited number of controls available, we chose this missing data technique over other options— specifically, multiple imputation—that rely on having large number of control variables and over analytic assumptions that our data did not meet (Little and Rubin, 2002). There was no missingness on the Census characteristics, with the exception of one zip code that contained one center with a total of 32 children. For that zip code, the ACS did not have observed data on the percentage of single-parent households or median family income. Our primary models exclude these 32 children in order to include all of the zip code–level variables. However, we conducted a sensitivity analyses where we included these children in the models and dropped to two Census variables with missing values; the primary results and inferences remained unchanged.
71 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table B.4. Linear Probability Models: Meets or Exceeds Expectations for B3–GOLD Language
Covariate [Omitted Category] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Teacher education category [no teachers have a BA] Some teachers have a BA 0.007 0.035 0.026 0.076 0.015 0.035 0.035 (0.037) (0.035) (0.035) (0.047) (0.051) (0.052) (0.186) All teachers have a BA 0.045* 0.032~ 0.032~ 0.039* 0.021 -0.017 -0.017 (0.018) (0.017) (0.017) (0.018) (0.018) (0.018) (0.036) Pretest (beginning of the year B3–GOLD) 0.002*** 0.002*** 0.002*** 0.002*** 0.002*** 0.002*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Child age 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) Female [male] 0.025 0.024 0.027~ 0.029* 0.029~ (0.015) (0.015) (0.015) (0.013) (0.017) Race/ethnicity [non-Hispanic white] Non-Hispanic black -0.081*** -0.033~ -0.033 -0.003 -0.003 (0.018) (0.019) (0.020) (0.019) (0.020) Hispanic -0.065 -0.039 -0.013 -0.023 -0.023 (0.040) (0.040) (0.039) (0.036) (0.043) Asian -0.249* -0.218* -0.205~ -0.191* -0.191~ (0.111) (0.110) (0.107) (0.097) (0.105) Native American -0.003 0.050 0.059 0.032 0.032 (0.118) (0.116) (0.113) (0.103) (0.098) Pacific Islander 0.083 0.049 0.039 0.054 0.054 (0.192) (0.188) (0.183) (0.167) (0.052) Multiracial 0.002 0.026 0.034 0.041 0.041* (0.033) (0.032) (0.032) (0.029) (0.020) Race missing -0.136* -0.055 -0.079 -0.017 -0.003 (0.057) (0.058) (0.062) (0.058) (0.020) Individual education plan status [no IEP] -0.023 -0.064 -0.046 -0.047 -0.047 (0.191) (0.188) (0.183) (0.167) (0.262) Number of CERDEP teachers -0.106*** -0.025 -0.046 -0.025 (0.031) (0.031) (0.034) (0.080) Number of CERDEP children 0.002 -0.002 0.000 -0.002 (0.001) (0.002) (0.002) (0.004)
72 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Covariate [Omitted Category] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 New provider [not a new provider] -0.183*** -0.134*** -0.132*** -0.132* (0.039) (0.039) (0.039) (0.063) CERDEP service option [traditional school year] Extended day -0.104** -0.100** -0.110** -0.110 (0.033) (0.035) (0.037) (0.077) Extended year -0.207*** -0.223*** -0.255*** -0.255** (0.033) (0.034) (0.038) (0.081) Summer -0.087*** -0.122*** -0.096*** -0.096* (0.026) (0.026) (0.027) (0.048) Multiple service options within center 0.057 0.099* -0.022 -0.022 (0.046) (0.047) (0.053) (0.109) ABC quality rating [C] B 0.039~ 0.013 0.103*** 0.103~ (0.021) (0.021) (0.023) (0.060) B+ 0.049~ 0.074** 0.173*** 0.173** (0.028) (0.028) (0.033) (0.066) A 0.179* 0.254** 0.363*** 0.363** (0.084) (0.083) (0.079) (0.117) A+ 0.057 0.114~ 0.288*** 0.288** (0.061) (0.062) (0.072) (0.095) Missing 0.201*** 0.167*** 0.197*** 0.197** (0.034) (0.035) (0.036) (0.060) Zip code adult race/ethnicity [non-Hispanic white] Percentage Hispanic -0.009*** -0.011*** -0.011 (0.002) (0.003) (0.007) Percentage Non-Hispanic black 0.001 -0.001 -0.001 (0.001) (0.001) (0.003) Percentage Non-Hispanic Asian 0.057*** 0.034** 0.034 (0.010) (0.013) (0.027) Percentage Non-Hispanic Native American 0.083*** 0.036 0.036 (0.017) (0.051) (0.112) Percentage Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander -0.343*** -0.139 -0.139 (0.084) (0.088) (0.200) Percentage Non-Hispanic other race -0.037 -0.084 -0.084 (0.048) (0.062) (0.128) 73 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Covariate [Omitted Category] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Percentage Non-Hispanic more than one race -0.017* -0.053*** -0.053* (0.008) (0.012) (0.021) Zip code percentage single-headed household -0.007*** -0.010*** -0.010* (0.002) (0.002) (0.005) Zip code adult education [less than a high school degree] Percentage with a high school degree or equivalent -0.008* -0.001 -0.001 (0.004) (0.005) (0.010) Percentage with some college -0.003 0.010** 0.010 (0.003) (0.004) (0.006) Percentage with a BA or higher -0.003 0.000 0.000 (0.003) (0.004) (0.009) Zip code median family income -0.004** -0.007** -0.007 (0.002) (0.003) (0.005) Country controls No No No No No Yes Yes Robust standard errors No No No No No No Yes Constant 0.820*** 0.199*** 0.147 0.237~ 1.048*** 0.779* 0.779 (0.015) (0.040) (0.122) (0.124) (0.268) (0.359) (0.649) N 1,860 1,860 1,860 1,860 1,860 1,860 1,860 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of SCDE administrative data. NOTES: Tables include parameter estimates and standard errors in parentheses. ~p < 0.1, * p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
74 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table B.5. Linear Probability Models: Meets or Exceeds Expectations for B3–GOLD Literacy
Covariate [Omitted Category] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Mode 7 Teacher education category [no teachers have a BA] Some teachers have a BA -0.051~ 0.001 -0.004 0.039 -0.046 -0.067 -0.067 (0.030) (0.029) (0.029) (0.040) (0.043) (0.046) (0.153) All teachers have a BA -0.006 0.009 0.011 0.013 0.003 -0.008 -0.008 (0.015) (0.014) (0.014) (0.015) (0.015) (0.016) (0.032) Pretest (beginning of the year B3–GOLD) 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** 0.001*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Child age 0.004* 0.004* 0.004* 0.004* 0.004* (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) Female [male] 0.030* 0.029* 0.030* 0.028* 0.028* (0.013) (0.013) (0.012) (0.012) (0.012) Race/ethnicity [non-Hispanic white] Non-Hispanic black -0.052*** -0.023 -0.030~ -0.021 -0.021 (0.015) (0.016) (0.017) (0.016) (0.016) Hispanic -0.025 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 (0.034) (0.033) (0.033) (0.031) (0.027) Asian -0.184* -0.168~ -0.154~ -0.153~ -0.153 (0.093) (0.092) (0.090) (0.085) (0.106) Native American -0.061 -0.034 0.015 0.008 0.008 (0.098) (0.097) (0.096) (0.090) (0.127) Pacific Islander 0.050 0.025 0.018 0.023 0.023 (0.160) (0.157) (0.154) (0.146) (0.071) Multiracial -0.010 0.003 0.000 0.013 0.013 (0.027) (0.027) (0.027) (0.025) (0.020) Race missing -0.095* -0.067 -0.073 -0.064 -0.064 (0.047) (0.048) (0.052) (0.051) (0.068) Individual education plan status [no IEP] -0.532*** -0.554*** -0.544*** -0.512*** -0.512~ (0.159) (0.157) (0.155) (0.146) (0.267) Number of CERDEP teachers -0.099*** -0.048~ -0.044 -0.044 (0.026) (0.026) (0.029) (0.059) Number of CERDEP children 0.001 -0.001 0.001 0.001 (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) (0.003) 75 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Covariate [Omitted Category] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Mode 7 New provider [not a new provider] -0.068* -0.046 -0.061~ -0.061 (0.033) (0.033) (0.034) (0.067) CERDEP service option [traditional school year] Extended day -0.096*** -0.108*** -0.114*** -0.114 (0.027) (0.029) (0.032) (0.073) Extended year -0.147*** -0.178*** -0.165*** -0.165* (0.028) (0.029) (0.033) (0.067) Summer -0.012 -0.036 -0.019 -0.019 (0.021) (0.022) (0.024) (0.031) Multiple service options within center 0.111** 0.127** 0.101* 0.101 (0.039) (0.040) (0.046) (0.080) ABC quality rating [C] B 0.033~ 0.025 0.069*** 0.069 (0.018) (0.018) (0.020) (0.041) B+ 0.035 0.047* 0.055~ 0.055 (0.023) (0.024) (0.029) (0.045) A 0.009 0.041 0.088 0.088 (0.070) (0.071) (0.069) (0.068) A+ 0.086~ 0.135** 0.189** 0.189* (0.051) (0.052) (0.063) (0.081) Missing 0.117*** 0.118*** 0.153*** 0.153* (0.028) (0.030) (0.032) (0.064) Zip code race/ethnicity [non-Hispanic white] Percentage Hispanic -0.005* -0.008** -0.008 (0.002) (0.003) (0.005) Percentage non-Hispanic black 0.000 -0.001 -0.001 (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) Percentage non-Hispanic Asian 0.047*** 0.027* 0.027 (0.009) (0.011) (0.018) Percentage non-Hispanic Native American -0.035* -0.117** -0.117 (0.014) (0.045) (0.074) Percentage non-Hispanic Pacific Islander -0.256*** -0.112 -0.112 (0.071) (0.077) (0.142) Percentage non-Hispanic other race -0.079~ -0.150** -0.150~ (0.041) (0.054) (0.090) 76 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Covariate [Omitted Category] Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Mode 7 Percentage non-Hispanic more than one race -0.001 -0.009 -0.009 (0.007) (0.011) (0.019) Zip code percentage single-headed household -0.004* -0.004~ -0.004 (0.002) (0.002) (0.003) Zip code adult education [less than a high school degree] Percentage with a high school degree or equivalent -0.002 0.002 0.002 (0.003) (0.004) (0.007) Percentage with some college -0.006* -0.004 -0.004 (0.002) (0.003) (0.006) Percentage with a BA or higher -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 (0.003) (0.004) (0.006) Zip code median family income -0.001 -0.002 -0.002 (0.001) (0.002) (0.003) Country controls No No No No No Yes Yes Robust standard errors No No No No No No Yes Constant 0.915*** 0.343*** 0.169 0.257* 0.728** 0.578~ 0.578 (0.012) (0.047) (0.104) (0.106) (0.227) (0.316) (0.495) N 1,857 1,857 1,857 1,857 1,857 1,857 1,857 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of SCDE administrative data. NOTES: Tables include parameter estimates and standard errors in parentheses. ~p < 0.1, * p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
77 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Appendix C. Comparing CERDEP Children Across Public and Private Settings
In this appendix we compare the demographic characteristics and early learning outcomes of children who attended 4K programs in public school districts that offered CERDEP with children who attended CERDEP in private settings. The goal of this appendix is to supplement and provide context for the teacher education analyses presented in Chapter 2. The primary analyses in Chapter 2 compare the outcomes of CERDEP children who attended private centers where all teachers had earned a BA with children who attended centers where only some or no teachers had a BA. These analyses only included children in private CERDEP providers. However, CERDEP stakeholders may also be interested in understanding how the outcomes of children who attended CERDEP in public school districts compare with children in private centers. In particular, the comparison of children in private centers where all teachers had a BA with CERDEP children in public school districts (where all teachers are required to have at least a BA) may provide some insight into the variation in child outcomes across public and private settings when one key factor—teacher education levels—is held constant. The SCDE administrative dataset contained information on children who attended CERDEP in public school districts in the 2017–2018 school year. We use these data in this analysis. In addition to CERDEP, South Carolina public school districts also had the option to implement other publicly funded non-CERDEP 4K programs, including the Half Day Child Development Program, created as part of the EIA, and 4K slots funded by Title I dollars and local funding. Some districts administered CERDEP and had non-CERDEP 4K slots. South Carolina law requires that all children served by a publicly funded 4K program be assessed at the beginning and end of the 4K year. As such, the SCDE dataset includes data from children who attended CERDEP (in private and public settings) and from children who attended other publicly 4K programs. It is important to note that CERDEP is the only publicly funded 4K program that was administered in private settings. The other publicly funded 4K programs were only administered in public school districts. In the 2017–2018 school year SCDE dataset, it is possible to identify the districts that administered CERDEP programs (referred to as CERDEP districts). However, the dataset does not contain a child-level CERDEP indicator; therefore, it is not possible to identify the children within CERDEP districts that were in a CERDEP classroom. For the purposes of the analyses presented here, we use the CERDEP district identifier as the best available proxy for identifying CERDEP children; we refer to them here as children who attended 4K in a CERDEP district. It is important to note that this is a heterogenous group of students with different early learning
79 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] experiences. While some of these children attended CERDEP, others may have attended half-day programs or other 4K classrooms with programmatic requirements that differ from CERDEP.
Demographic Characteristics In this section we present information on the demographic characteristics of children who attended CERDEP in private providers and children who attended 4K in CERDEP districts. The demographic characteristics include child age, gender, race/ethnicity, IEP status, and LEP status (see Appendix B for a description of these variables). We present these characteristics in Table C.1 for seven different groups of children. In the first column we present information on all children who attended 4K in CERDEP public school districts (N=11,263). This group includes all children who we identified in CERDEP public districts and who had observed demographic data. The approximately 11,000 children attended 273 schools in the 61 CERDEP districts. (As noted in the body of the report, 64 districts were eligible to administer CERDEP, but only 61 participated). The second column, labeled as the analytic sample, includes the subset of children in CERDEP public school districts who had B3–GOLD scores at the beginning and at the end of the year. This group includes 2,491 children in 11 districts; we refer to this group as the “Public School District B3–GOLD CERDEP Analytic Sample.” As described, all children who attended a publicly funded 4K program were required to be assessed during their 4K year. While all private CERDEP providers used the B3–GOLD, public districts had the option to choose from three different assessments: the B3–GOLD, the Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS-PreK) and the Individual Growth and Development Indicators of Early Literacy (IGDIs-EL) 2nd Edition Universal Screening. According to SCDE, districts had the autonomy to choose the assessment that best fit local needs. We do not have additional information on how districts selected their individual assessment. Those that selected the B3–GOLD may be different than those that select the other two assessments.28 The next set of columns includes children who attended CERDEP in private providers. In the third column of the table, we present information for all children who attended CERDEP in a private provider (n = 2,353); this group includes all children present in the SCDE dataset with observed demographic characteristics. Next, we present information on the analytic sample of children who attended CERDEP in a private provider (n = 1860), defined as children who attended CERDEP in a private setting for whom we had data on the teacher education levels at their centers, and who had observed B3–GOLD scores at both the beginning and end of the year. This sample is identical to that presented in Chapter 2. We also disaggregate the analytic sample
28 Researchers at the University of South Carolina conducted a descriptive analysis of all three of the outcome measures for all children who attended publicly funded 4K in SCDE school districts in the 2017–2018 school year. The results were reported to the South Carolina General Assembly by the EOC (see EOC, 2019). 80 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] by the three teacher education level categories (see Appendix B for a description of how these categories were created).
Table C.1. Demographic Characteristics of 4K Children in CERDEP Public School Districts and Private Provider CERDEP Classrooms
4K Children in
CERDEP Districts 4K Children in Private Provider CERDEP Classrooms By Share of Teachers with a BA Analytic Analytic
Indicator Total Samplea Total Sampleb All Some None 54.2 54.1 53.9 53.9 53.9 53.8 54.0 Age in months (mean, s.d.) (3.6) (3.5) (3.6) (3.5) (3.6) (3.5) (3.5) Missing (percentage) 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gender (percentage
distribution) Male 50.8 50.8 45.9 50.9 49.8 55.5 52.3 Female 49.2 49.2 46.0 49.1 50.2 44.5 47.7 Missing 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Race/ethnicity (percentage
distribution) White 36.5 39.6 24.1 25.9 24.4 33.6 27.5 Black 47.4 46.0 54.5 59.7 60.5 56.4 58.8 Hispanic 10.3 8.5 3.9 4.2 4.6 0.9 4.1 Asian 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.4 Native American 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 Pacific Islander 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Multi-racial 4.3 4.7 6.6 7.1 7.8 8.2 5.2 Missing 0.1 0.0 10.1 2.0 1.4 0.0 3.7
Limited English proficient
(percentage distribution) Yes 7.6 4.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 No 92.2 94.0 4.8 5.3 5.0 9.1 5.2 Missing 0.3 1.3 95.1 94.6 94.9 90.9 94.8
Individual education plan
(percentage distribution) Yes 7.5 6.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 No 92.5 93.3 91.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 Missing 5.8 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
N 11,236 2,491 2,353 1,860 1,211 110 539 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of SCDE administrative data. NOTE: s.d. = standard deviation. a This analytic sample consists of 4K children in CERDEP public school districts that used the B3–GOLD assessment and who had a B3–GOLD score at both the beginning and end of the school year.
81 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] b This analytic sample consists of 4K children in private-provider CERDEP classrooms who had a B3–GOLD score at both the beginning and end of the school year.
82 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
When comparing with all children who attended 4K in CERDEP public school districts (the first column) with all children who attended CERDEP in private settings (the third column), the data suggest the groups have some similarities in key characteristics, including average age and gender distribution. However, the table suggests that the racial distribution differed across the two groups. Specifically, there was a higher percentage of Black children and lower percentage of White and Hispanic children in private providers compared with children who attended 4K in a CERDEP public school district. In addition, children in public districts were more likely to have an IEP (7 percent of children in public school districts versus less than one percent of children in private providers). The difference in the prevalence of children with IEPs may be explained by the fact that school districts tend to have more services available to serve children with special education needs. The data also indicate that children who were in a CERDEP public school district were more likely to be identified as having limited English proficiency; however, these data were largely missing for children in private providers. These demographic contrasts are similar when comparing only children in private settings who attended centers where all teachers had a BA with all children in the CERDEP public school districts. It is also useful to compare all children who attended 4K in a CERDEP district, with the subsample of children from public school districts that administered the B3–GOLD. This comparison gives an indication of how representative the children who were administered the B3–GOLD are of all children in CERDEP public school districts. Indeed, the B3–GOLD sample looks similar to that of all children in the CERDEP districts on this set of characteristics.29
B3–GOLD Scores In Chapter 2, we used linear probability modeling to compare the outcomes of children in private providers who attended centers where all teachers had a BA with children who attended private centers where some or no teachers had a BA, while controlling for key child and provider characteristics. We were unable to employ the same analytic techniques as in the previous section when comparing children across settings for two key reasons. First, as discussed, it was not possible to identify CERDEP children in CERDEP public school districts. Second, the provider characteristics that were observed for private providers (such as quality ratings) were not available for public school districts. Therefore, it was not possible to fit regression models adjusting for key controls. Instead, we provide a descriptive comparison of children’s outcomes. In Table C.2, we present B3–GOLD scores for the public school district B3–GOLD CERDEP sample and the private provider analytic sample—for the total sample and broken down by teacher education level. In the top panel we present scores for the B3–GOLD language outcome, and in the bottom panel we present the literacy outcome. For each outcome we present the
29 Children in the B3–GOLD sample were slightly less likely to have limited English proficiency than the full public school district sample (4.5 percent of children as compared to 7 percent). 83 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Table C.2. Beginning- and End-of-Year B3–GOLD WHE Scores for the Analytic Samples of the 4K Children in CERDEP Public School Districts and in Private Provider CERDEP Classrooms
4K Children in CERDEP Districts 4K Children in Private Provider CERDEP Classrooms
Analytic Analytic By Share of Teachers with a BA Indicator Samplea Sampleb All Some None B3–GOLD: Language Beginning-of-year WHE score
(percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds 27.1 45.1 47.1 35.5 42.5
expectations Below expectations 72.9 54.9 52.9 64.5 57.5 End-of-year WHE score
(percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds 86.3 85.0 86.5 82.7 82.0
expectations Below expectations 13.7 15.0 13.5 17.3 18.0 N 2,491 1,860 1,211 110 539 B3–GOLD: Literacy Beginning-of-year WHE score
(percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds 28.3 51.3 51.0 40.0 54.4
expectations Below expectations 71.7 48.7 49.0 60.0 45.6 End-of-year WHE score
(percentage distribution) Meets or exceeds 94.5 90.8 90.9 86.4 91.5
expectations Below expectations 5.5 9.2 9.1 13.6 8.5 N 2,490 1,857 1,208 110 539 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of SCDE administrative data. a This analytic sample consists of 4K children in CERDEP public school districts that used the B3–GOLD assessment and who had a B3–GOLD score at both the beginning and end of the school year. b This analytic sample consists of 4K children in private provider CERDEP classrooms who had a B3–GOLD score at both the beginning and end of the school year. percent of children who met or exceeded expectations, and the percentage of children who fell below expectations at both the beginning and end of the school year. Across both the language and literacy outcomes, a smaller percentage of children who attended a 4K program in a CERDEP public school district met or exceeded age-level expectations at the beginning of the year, compared with CERDEP children who attended private providers. This conclusion holds when looking at the total private provider analytic sample and each teacher education group. For example, 47 percent of children who attended private providers where all teachers had a BA met or exceeded expectations on language scores in the fall, compared with only 27 of children who attended 4K in a CERDEP district. The pattern is similar when looking at children’s literacy scores. These data suggest that children who attend 84 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
4K in a CERDEP public school district that administered the B3–GOLD were less likely to start their 4K year meeting age-level expectations, compared with children who attended CERDEP in private settings. However, by the end of the year, there were few differences in the percentages of children meeting or exceeding expectations in private providers and public school districts. For the language outcome, the percentages of children meeting or exceeding expectations among children who attended private providers and children who attended 4K in CERDEP public school districts were similar. Indeed, the percentages of children meeting or exceeding expectations in the public school districts and the private providers where all teachers had a BA were nearly identical at 86 percent. The pattern is similar when looking at the literacy outcome. Though, in this case, a slightly higher percentage of children who attended 4K in a CERDEP public school district met or exceeded expectations (about 94 percent) compared with children in the private centers (about 90 percent). These results suggest that children who attended 4K in a public school district started off the 4K year with lower skill levels, but caught up to children who attended CERDEP in private providers by the end of the school year. These observed differences could be explained by a number of factors. As noted, the heterogeneity in the public school district group must be considered. The variability in children’s 4K experience may drive the differences in outcomes. Or, as indicated in Table C.1, the children in public school districts were more likely to have IEPs; this difference may explain the lower percentage of children meeting expectations at the start of the year. In addition, there are many important demographic characteristics not included in the SCDE dataset—family income or parent education level, for example. These or other unmeasured differences between the groups could have driven the variation in the outcomes. Finally, as described in Appendix B, the B3–GOLD is not a direct assessment of child skills; rather, the scores are derived from teacher reports of children’s skills based on observations and interactions with children in the classroom. It is possible that teachers across public and private settings employ the assessment tool differently, leading to variation in child outcomes. Indeed, new research focused on an older version of a Teacher Strategies GOLD school readiness assessment suggests that teachers’ use of the assessment tool may not be effective for discriminating between the skills of children in a single classroom (Russo et al., 2019). Thus, the tool may be limited in its ability to compare children across classrooms and thus across private and public settings.
85 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] Appendix D. CERDEP Professional Development Key Informant Interview Protocol
CERDEP Professional Development Interview Protocol
Professional Position and Organization’s Role in PD
1. Within [organization] can you tell me a little bit about your role and what your official title is?
2. Can you tell me a little bit about the professional development services offered by [INSERT NAME OF ORG] provided to lead and assistant teachers? a. What is your role in this process? Do you directly provide PD or facilitate sessions? b. FOR CCCCD—how do you approve PD? What does the process look like?
3. We know some about the professional development requirements in the state; however, can you talk to us a little about these requirements and whether, based on your understanding, these requirements differ by private or public CERDEP providers? a. Can you tell us how state or district policies or offerings may differ? Is there a lot of variation across districts/private providers? b. Do certain types of centers (e.g., Head Start) or regions have different policies/offerings and how do these vary across programs/regions? c. How does coaching fit in the model? d. Are there differences in requirements for online PD vs. in-person PD? e. FOR PUBLIC PROVIDERS—Who at the public school site is considered a director, and do they need the 20 hours of PD to meet state requirements?
4. How, if at all, do you use the Learning Forward: Standards for Professional Learning?
5. What other organizations, apart from yours, provide PD to lead and assistant teachers? Can you explain how the process works for teachers to sign up or select PD sessions to attend? Tracking Professional Development 6. How does your organization, if at all, track attendance in PD sessions? Is this the same no matter the format (e.g., online versus in-person; coaching or workshop)? a. Do districts/centers track teacher PD and how it meets CERDEP requirements by person or center/district? 87 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
7. IF PD IS TRACKED: Can you tell me what elements of PD are tracked? For example, do you track PD content, length, type, location, instructor, et cetera? a. If possible, could you send us a screenshot or example file of how PD is tracked?
8. Are lead and assistant teacher PD hours tracked over time, so you can see whether requirements are met? a. If so, how do you track these sessions or workshops over time? b. Is PD tracked across sites, meaning that if a teacher moves to a new center, do the PD hours follow them? Or are they center-specific?
9. Does another organization track PD hours for teachers? For example, like CCCCD? If so, could you tell me a little about the process? Professional Development Funding and Costs 10. Can you tell me a little bit about how PD offered by your organization is funded? a. Are costs reimbursed by any organization? b. Do you know if the state covers any of the costs?
11. Do teachers have to pay for any of the PD? If so, are they/the centers reimbursed for any amount? Final Questions 12. Any other items or topics around CERDEP PD that I should know about or that we should discuss?
13. Are there any helpful CERDEP PD documents or websites that I should know about or that you can send to me?
Thanks for your time!
88 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] References
Barnett, W. Steven, “Better Teachers, Better Preschools: Student Achievement Linked to Teacher Qualifications,” Preschool Policy Matters, No. 2, 2003. As of March 14, 2019: http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2.pdf Bowman, Barbara T., Suzanne Donovan, and Marie Susan Burns, Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers, Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 2000. Bowne, Jocelyn Bonnes, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and Catherine E. Snow, “Experimental Impacts of a Teacher Professional Development Program in Early Childhood on Explicit Vocabulary Instruction Across the Curriculum,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 34, 2016, pp. 27–39. Boyd, Margaret, “I Love My Work But...’ The Professionalization of Early Childhood Education,” The Qualitative Report, Vol. 18, No. 36, 2013, pp. 1–20. As of March 14, 2019: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol18/iss36/1/ Burchinal, Margaret R., Debby Cryer, Richard M. Clifford, and Carollee Howes, “Caregiver Training and Classroom Quality in Child Care Centers,” Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2002, pp. 2–11. Burts, Diane, Heather Baker, and Toni Bickart, GOLD Criteria Report: Birth Through Third Grade, Bethesda, Md.: Teaching Strategies, 2016. As of March 14, 2019: https://teachingstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TS_GOLD_Criteria- Report_2016.pdf Cannon, Jill S., Anamarie A. Whitaker, Rebecca Diamond, and Katherine L. Spurlock, Professional Development for the Early Care and Education Workforce in Shelby County, Tennessee, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-1454-TUCI, 2016. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1454.html. Click, Carolyn, and Dawn Hinshaw, “S.C. Supreme Court Finds for Poor Districts in 20-Year- Old School Equity Suit,” The State, November 12, 2014. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article13911206.html D’Amico, Leigh Kale, J. Montana Cain, William Brown, and Sandra Linder, Education Oversight Committee Community Block Grants: 2016–17 Cohort Evaluation Report, South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, 2018. As of March 14, 2019: https://eoc.sc.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/2018%20Community%20Block%20Grants/1
89 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
0.03.18%20FINAL%20Community%20Block%20Grant%20Evaluation%20Report%20for% 202016-17%20Cohort.pdf Dickinson, David K. and Linda Caswell, “Building Support for Language and Early Literacy in Preschool Classrooms Through In-Service Professional Development: Effects of the Literacy Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP),” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2007, pp. 243–260. Early Childhood Data Collaborative, webpage, undated. As of May 17, 2019: https://www.ecedata.org/ Early, Diane M., Kelly L. Maxwell, Margaret Burchinal, Soumya Alva, Randall H. Bender, Donna Bryant, Karen Cai, Richard M. Clifford, Caroline Ebanks, and James A. Griffin, “Teachers’ Education, Classroom Quality, and Young Children's Academic Skills: Results from Seven Studies of Preschool Programs,” Child Development, Vol. 78, No. 2, March– April 2007, pp. 558–580. Early, Diane M., Kelly L. Maxwell, Debra Skinner, Syndee Kraus, Katie Hume, and Yi Pan, Georgia's Pre-K Professional Development Evaluation: Final Report, Chapel Hill, N.C.: UNC Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute and Child Trends, 2014. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.childtrends.org/publications/georgias-pre-k-professional-development- evaluation-final-report Early, Diane M., Kelly L. Maxwell, Bentley D. Ponder, and Yi Pan, “Improving Teacher–Child Interactions: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Making the Most of Classroom Interactions and My Teaching Partner Professional Development Models,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 38, 2017, pp. 57–70. Egert, Franziska, Ruben G. Fukkink, and Andrea G. Eckhardt. “Impact of In-Service Professional Development Programs for Early Childhood Teachers on Quality Ratings and Child Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88, No. 3, June 2018, pp. 401–433. EOC—See South Carolina Education Oversight Commission. First Steps—See South Carolina First Steps. Friedman-Krauss, Allison, and Richard Kasmin, Lead Teacher Workforce Qualifications, Pay and Parity, New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research, May 2018. As of March 14, 2019: http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Yearbook-Data- Snapshot_Workforce_5.29.18.pdf
90 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Friedman-Krauss, Allison H., W. Steven Barnett, G. G. Weisenfeld, Richard Kasmin, Nicole DiCrecchio, and Michelle Horowitz, The State of Preschool 2017: State Preschool Yearbook, New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2018. Garet, Michael S., Andrew C. Porter, Laura Desimone, Beatrice F. Birman, and Kwang Suk Yoon, “What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers,” American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, January 2001, pp. 915–945. Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning, “Online Library Learning Initiative (OLLI),” 2019. As of March 14, 2019: http://decal.ga.gov/Training/OLLI.aspx Gilreath, Ariel, “SC High Court Vacates Abbeville Lawsuit Decision,” Index-Journal, November 20, 2017. As of March 14, 2019: http://www.indexjournal.com/news/breaking/sc-high-court-vacates-abbeville-lawsuit- decision/article_e185b52e-6399-5017-997b-620701866ca4.html Girolametto, Luigi, Elaine Weitzman, Pascal Lefebvre, and Janice Greenberg, “The Effects of In-Service Education to Promote Emergent Literacy in Child Care Centers: A Feasibility Study,” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2007, pp. 72– 83. Gomez, Rebecca E., Sharon Lynn Kagan, and Emily A. Fox, “Professional Development of the Early Childhood Education Teaching Workforce in the United States: An Overview,” Professional Development in Education, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2015, pp. 169–186. Gould, Elise, and Tanyell Cooke, “High Quality Child Care is Out of Reach for Working Families,” Economic Policy Institute Issue Brief, No. 404, October 6, 2015. Karoly, Lynn A., A Golden Opportunity: Advancing California's Early Care and Education Workforce Professional Development System, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-1188-PF, 2012. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1188.html Karoly, Lynn A. and Celia J. Gomez, Cost Analysis of the South Carolina Child Early Reading and Development Education Program, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2906- SCEOC, 2019. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2906.html Kelley, Pamela, and Gregory Camilli, The Impact of Teacher Education on Outcomes in Center- Based Early Childhood Education Programs: A Meta-analysis, New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2007. As of March 14, 2019: http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/TeacherEd.pdf
91 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
King, Carlise, Victoria Perkins, Courtney Nugent, and Elizabeth Jordan, 2018 State of State Early Childhood Data Systems, Early Childhood Data Collaborative, 2018. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.ecedata.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ECDC-50-state-survey-9.25.pdf Kraft, Matthew A., David Blazar, and Dylan Hogan, “The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 88, No. 4, August 2018, pp. 547–588. Lambert, Richard G., Technical Manual for the Teaching Strategies GOLDTM Assessment System: Birth through Third Grade Edition, Charlotte, N.C.: Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation, University of North Carolina Charlotte, March 2017. Landry, Susan H., Paul R. Swank, Karen E. Smith, Michael A. Assel, and Susan B. Gunnewig, “Enhancing Early Literacy Skills for Preschool Children: Bringing a Professional Development Model to Scale,” Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 39, No. 4, July–August 2006, pp. 306–324. Landry, Susan H., Jason L. Anthony, Paul R. Swank, and Pauline Monseque-Bailey, “Effectiveness of Comprehensive Professional Development for Teachers of At-Risk Preschoolers,” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 101, No. 2, May 2009, pp. 448–465. Learning Forward, “Standards for Professional Living,” webpage, undated. As of March 14, 2019: https://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning Lemoine, Sarah, Workforce Designs: A Policy Blueprint for State Early Childhood Professional Development Systems, New York, N.Y.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2008. Little, Roderick J.A., and Donald B. Rubin, Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2002. Manning, Matthew, Susanne Garvis, Christopher Fleming, and Gabriel T.W. Wong, “The Relationship Between Teacher Qualification and the Quality of the Early Childhood Care and Learning Environment,” Campbell Systematic Reviews, Vol. 13, January 20, 2017. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/teacher-qualification-and-quality-of-early- childhood-care-and-learning.html Manning, Matthew, Gabriel TW Wong, Christopher M. Fleming, and Susanne Garvis. “Is Teacher Qualification Associated with the Quality of the Early Childhood Education and Care Environment? A Meta-Analytic Review,” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 89, No. 3, June 2019, pp. 370–415.
92 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Markussen-Brown, Justin, Carsten B. Juhl, Shayne B. Piasta, Dorthe Bleses, Anders Højen, and Laura M. Justice, “The Effects of Language- and Literacy-Focused Professional Development on Early Educators and Children: A Best-Evidence Meta-Analysis,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 38, 2017, pp. 97–115. McCarthy, Mary Alice and Aaron Lowenberg, Re-Thinking Credential Requirements in Early Education: Equity-Based Strategies for Professionalizing a Vulnerable Workforce, Washington, D.C.: New America, 2017. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/06_20_17_DRAFT_Credenti aling-for-ECE.pdf Muenchow, Susan, Aleksandra Holod, Heather E. Quick, Laura E. Hawkinson, Raquel L. González, Kiana Abram, Rachel A. Valentino, Deborah Parrish, Gail L. Zellman, Jill S Cannon, Lynn A. Karoly, Beth Katz, and Teryn Mattox, Local Quality Improvement Efforts and Outcomes Descriptive Study, San Mateo, Calif. and Santa Monica, Calif.: American Institutes for Research and RAND Corporation, EP-51527, 2013. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/external_publications/EP51527.html NAEYC—See National Association for the Education of Young Children. NASEM—See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2015. National Association for the Education of Young Children, Build It Better: Indicators of Progress to Support Integrated Early Childhood Professional Development Systems, Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children, March 2016. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/our-work/public- policy-advocacy/Build%20It%20Better_For%20Web.pdf National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning, Early Childhood Workforce: Registries, undated. As of May 17, 2019: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/early-childhood-workforce-registries.pdf National Professional Development Center on Inclusion, What Do We Mean by Professional Development in the Early Childhood Field? Chapel Hill: UNC Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, 2008. As of March 14, 2019: https://npdci.fpg.unc.edu/sites/npdci.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NPDCI_ProfessionalDevelo pmentInEC_03-04-08_0.pdf
93 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
National Workforce Registry Alliance, webpage, undated. As of March 14, 2019: https://registryalliance.org/ Neuman, Susan B., and Linda Cunningham, “The Impact of Professional Development and Coaching on Early Language and Literacy Instructional Practices,” American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 46, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 532–566. Powell, Douglas R., Karen E. Diamond, Margaret R. Burchinal, and Matthew J. Koehler, “Effects of an Early Literacy Professional Development Intervention on Head Start Teachers and Children,” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102, No. 2, 2010, pp. 299–312. Preschool Development Grants, “Early Learning Language and Literacy Series,” undated. As of March 14, 2019: https://pdg.grads360.org/#program/early-learning-language-and-literacy-series Rose, Katherine Kensinger, and James Elicker. “Parental Decision Making About Child Care,” Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 29, No. 9, 2008, pp. 1161–1184. Russo, Jaclyn M., Amanda P. Williford, Anna J. Markowitz, Virginia E. Vitiello, and Daphna Bassok, “Examining the Validity of a Widely-Used School Readiness Assessment: Implications for Teachers and Early Childhood Programs,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, 2019, pp. 14–25. SC Child Care—See South Carolina Child Care. SCDE—See South Carolina Department of Education. Schachter, Rachel E., “An Analytic Study of the Professional Development Research in Early Childhood Education,” Early Education and Development, Vol. 26, No. 8, 2015, pp. 1057– 1085. Schilder, Diane, Early Childhood Teacher Education Policies: Research Review and State Trends, New Brunswick, N.J.: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes, 2016. As of March 14, 2019: http://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ ceelo_policy_report_ec_teach_education_policies_final_for_web_2016_04.pdf Sheridan, Susan M., Carolyn Pope Edwards, Christine A. Marvin, and Lisa L. Knoche, “Professional Development in Early Childhood Programs: Process Issues and Research Needs,” Early Education and Development, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009, pp. 377–401. Shonkoff, Jack P., W. Thomas Boyce, and Bruce S. McEwen, “Neuroscience, Molecular Biology, and the Childhood Roots of Health Disparities: Building a New Framework for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 301, No. 21, 2009, pp. 2252–2259.
94 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
South Carolina Department of Education, “CDEP Resources and Forms,” website, undated-a. As of March 14, 2019: https://ed.sc.gov/instruction/early-learning-and-literacy/cdep/cdep-resources-and-forms1/ ———, “CERDEP,” webpage, undated-b. As of November 30, 2018: https://ed.sc.gov/instruction/early-learning-and-literacy/cdep/ ———, Child Early Reading and Development Education Program (CERDEP) Report Provided to the EOC, unpublished report, 2018a. ———, “2018-19 CERDEP Guidelines,” 2018b. As of March 14, 2019: https://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/File/instruction/early-learning- literacy/CDEP/CERDEP%20guidelines%2018-19%20approved%20%2321464.docx South Carolina Department of Social Services, Regulations for the Licensing of Child Care Centers, 2018a. As of March 14, 2019: http://scchildcare.org/media/59009/2018-CCC-regulations-updated.pdf ———, “South Carolina Early Learning Standards,” 2018b. As of March 14, 2019: https://ed.sc.gov/instruction/early-learning-and-literacy/early-learning/standards/ South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, State-Funded Full-Day 4K, Columbia, S.C., 2017. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/reports/EducationOversightComm/State-Funded%20Full- Day%204K%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%201.20.17.pdf ———, State-Funded Full-Day 4K: Evaluation, Columbia, S.C., 2018. As of March 14, 2019, 2018: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/reports/EducationOversightComm/Evaluation%20of%20Full- Day%204K,%20FY2016-17%20&%20FY2017–2018 -Final.pdf ———, FY2017–2018 & FY2018-19 State-Funded Full-Day 4K: Annual Report, Columbia, SC, 2019. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/reports/EducationOversightComm/STATE- FUNDED%20FULL%20DAY%204K%20PROGRAM%20REPORT.pdf South Carolina First Steps, “4K Data Request to EOC,” unpublished, 2018a. ———, “South Carolina First Steps 4K Guidelines 2018-19,” Columbia, S.C., 2018b. As of March 14, 2019: http://scfirststeps.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/FINAL-First-Steps-4K-Guidelines-2018- 2019-8.4.18.pdf South Carolina General Assembly, Read to Succeed Act, Act 284, June 26, 2014. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/bills/516.htm 95 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey,” webpage, undated. As of May 14, 2019: https://census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/ U.S. Department of Education, Toward the Identification of Features of Effective Professional Development for Early Childhood Educators: Literature Review, Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 2010. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, “Head Start Program Facts: Fiscal Year 2017,” webpage, 2018. As of March 14, 2019: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/about-us/article/head-start-program-facts-fiscal-year-2017 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education, The Integration of Early Childhood Data, November 2016. As of March 14, 2019: https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/integration-of-early-childhood- data.pdf Weiler, Spencer Charles, Abbeville v. the State of South Carolina: A Case Study, dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va., 2007. Whitebook, Marcy, “Early Education Quality: Higher Teacher Qualifications for Better Living Environments. A Review of the Literature,” Berkeley, Calif.: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, January 1, 2003. As of March 14, 2019: http://cscce.berkeley.edu/early-education-quality-higher-teacher-qualifications-for-better- learning-environments-a-literature-review Whitebook, Marcy, and Caitlin McLean, Educator Expectations, Qualifications, and Earnings: Shared Challenges and Divergent, Berkeley, Calif.: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, 2017. As of March 14, 2019: http://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2017/Educator-Expectations-Qualifications-and-Earnings.pdf Wong, Vivian C., Thomas D. Cook, W. Steven Barnett, and Kwanghee Jung, “An Effectiveness- Based Evaluation of Five State Pre-Kindergarten Programs,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, Winter 2008, pp. 122–154. Yoshikawa, Hirozaku, Christina Weiland, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Margaret R. Burchinal, Linda M. Espinosa, William T. Gormley, Jens Ludwig, Katherine A. Magnuson, Deborah Phillips, and Martha J. Zaslow, Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool, Society for Research in Child Development and Foundation for Child Development, October 2013. As of March 14, 2019: https://www.fcd-us.org/the-evidence-base-on-preschool/ Zill, Nicholas, Gary Resnick, Kwang Kim, Ruth Hubbell McKey, Cheryl Clark, Shefali Pai- Samant, David Connell, Michael Vaden-Kiernan, Robert O'Brien, and Mary Ann D’Elio,
96 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.] RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Head Start FACES: Longitudinal Findings on Program Performance, Third Progress Report, January 2001. As of March 14, 2019: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED453969
97 RR-2944 The South Carolina CERDEP Workforce [PREPUBLICATION COPY. NOT CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE.]
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program
Final Evaluation Report
to the
South Carolina Education Oversight Committee
June 10, 2019
Prepared by Kathryn Lee D’Andrea, Ph.D.
ii
Executive Summary
Over the past decade the General Assembly passed two pieces of legislation – The Education and Economic Development Act (EEDA) of 2005 and the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate, Act 195 of 2016 – that focus on similar desired outcomes: students leaving high school with a South Carolina diploma prepared to take the desired next step into the military, college, or the workforce. This preparation includes (1) building knowledge in critical areas like science, technology, math, engineering, the arts, and social studies; (2) growing world class skills like creativity, innovation, team-building, collaboration, and communication skills; and (3) developing work and life skills like self-direction, perseverance, interpersonal skills and global perspective.
In pursuit of these desired outcomes, the General Assembly designated and appropriated funds for a third year in a pilot program, the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program – an initiative of Learning.com. In 2016-17 the General Assembly appropriated $1.3 million in non-recurring Education Improvement Act (EIA) revenues for the initiative. Districts and schools in the Abbeville equity lawsuit or districts and schools with a poverty index of 80 percent or greater were eligible to participate. (Provisos 1A.52. and 1A.75. of the 2016-17 General Appropriation Act) In 2017-2018, the General Assembly designated and appropriated $1.3 million in non- recurring EIA revenues to continue the pilot program, the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program through provisos 1A.50. and 1A.69. of the 2017-18 General Appropriation Act. And again, in 2018-2019, the General Assembly designated and appropriated $1.3 million in non-recurring EIA revenues to continue the pilot program, the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program through Proviso 1A.65. of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act
1A.65. (SDE‑EIA: Digital Learning) Of the funds appropriated to the Education Oversight Committee for Partnerships for Innovation, $1,300,000 must be authorized for schools or school districts that have poverty indices of eighty percent or greater based on the poverty index utilized the prior fiscal year that was student eligibility for the free or reduced price lunch program and Medicaid, or are a trial or plaintiff district in the Abbeville equity lawsuit. In these districts, the EOC will pilot a program that provides school districts with digital learning tools, digital resources, the curriculum foundry, technical support, and professional development.
iii
In 2018-2019, thirty-six (36) districts were identified as eligible, and twenty-five (25) districts ultimately enrolled or re-enrolled to use the Learning.com software.
This report examines the third-year implementation of the pilot project approximately two and half years after the first implementation step. The report outlines findings by the evaluator through observation, interviews, and software data collection and includes recommendations based on the findings.
The pursuit and successful attainment of the outcomes stated in both the EEDA and the Profile of the South Carolina Graduate take time. Commitment to the goals must be demonstrated through continued support at the same time interim data are examined for formative effectiveness. This 2018-2019 Final Report recommends the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program transition to a district by district decision and adoption. When the software models are implemented with fidelity, including support and focus from both school system and building level leadership, the reported results are positive in both pre-to-post assessments and district interviews. Absent the commitment to integrate the instructional technology with core subjects or enough student time on task/technology, the results are not consistent and less positive.
iv
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program Final Evaluation Report
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 7
Process of Implementation ...... 9
Findings ...... 11
Recommendations ...... 19
Conclusion ...... 21
Appendix A: Resource References ...... 23
Appendix B: Profile of the SC Graduate...... 25
Appendix C: Learning.com Report – Monthly Report through February 28, 2019 ...... 27
Appendix D: Learning.com 5th Grade Pre- and Post Assessments (April 2019) ...... 37
Appendix E: Professional Development Provided by Learning.com Staff (2018-2019) ...... 45
v
vi
Introduction
For a third consecutive year, the General Assembly funded a pilot program, the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program – an initiative of Learning.com, in the 2018-19 state budget for districts and schools in the Abbeville equity lawsuit or districts and schools with a poverty index of 80 percent or greater. The General Assembly designated and appropriated $1.3 million in non-recurring Education Improvement Act (EIA) revenues to continue the pilot program, the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program, through Proviso 1A.65 of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act, which reads:
1A.65. (SDE-EIA: Digital Learning) Of the funds appropriated to the Education Oversight Committee for Partnerships for Innovation, $1,300,000 must be authorized for schools or school districts that have poverty indices of eighty percent or greater based on the poverty index utilized the prior fiscal year that was student eligibility for the free or reduced price lunch program and Medicaid, or are a trial or plaintiff district in the Abbeville equity lawsuit. In these districts, the EOC will pilot a program that provides school districts with digital learning tools, digital resources, the curriculum foundry, technical support, and professional development.
The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program
to this point in its third year of implementation. As stated in Proviso 1A.65., the intent of the
General Assembly is to improve digital literacy of students and provide technical support and professional development to teachers. These skills, understandings and applications are essential elements of developing a college and career ready student who also fulfills the
Profile of the South Carolina Graduate as adopted by the General Assembly in Act 195 of
2016 (H.4936, R.206).
The Palmetto Digital Literacy Program is an initiative of Learning.com, an American-based
company, providing software and technology tools to students, schools and districts all over
the world. According to their website, “Learning.com provides an intuitive, flexible, and
personalized digital education experience – built for educators by educators. We make it easy
7 to engage students while offering a comprehensive and reliable educational platform that supports districts by empowering teachers, track results and get a return on their educational investment.”
This report contains the findings of the examination of the product within the context and landscape of South Carolina school districts named in the Abbeville equity lawsuit or having poverty indices of eighty percent or greater based on the poverty index utilized in the prior fiscal year, which was based on student eligibility for the free or reduced-price lunch program and Medicaid. The report consists of three main parts: (1) the process of implementation; (2) the findings, and (3) the recommendations. The examination and the subsequent report include information gathered from the vendor, the evaluator’s personal observations, interviews with the districts, and the evaluator’s professional expertise.
8
Process of Implementation of the Palmetto Digital Literacy Project
Pursuant to the Proviso 1A.65. of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act and the Palmetto
Digital Literacy Project, in the summer of 2018, the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) staff sent an invitation to participate in the project to the following districts:
33 Abbeville Lawsuit Districts
Abbeville Clarendon 3 Laurens 56 Allendale Dillon 3 Lee Bamberg 1 Dillon 4 Lexington 4 Bamberg 2 Florence 1 Marion Barnwell 19 (Blackwell- Florence 2 Marlboro Hilda) Florence 3 McCormick Barnwell 29 (Williston) Florence 4 Orangeburg 3 Barnwell 45 Florence 5 Orangeburg 5 Berkeley Hampton 1 Saluda Chesterfield Hampton 2 Williamsburg Clarendon 1 Jasper Clarendon 2 Laurens 55
Three (3) Other Districts with 80% or Higher Poverty
Colleton Darlington Fairfield
Seven (7) Districts Not Eligible in 2018-2019 Under Revised Poverty Index Definition (in separate agreement Learning.com offered the product to these districts at no cost for this year)
Anderson 3 Chester Greenwood 51 Calhoun Dorchester 4 Union Cherokee
9
Of the thirty-six (36) districts invited to participate, twenty-five (25) districts chose to participate and, at the time of this report writing, have implemented the use of the software at various stages: signed agreements, software set-up and interface, training, and implementation. Eleven of the 36 districts either were non-responsive after multiple contacts or chose not to participate in school year 2018-2019.
According to records at Learning.com, there have been 960,349 content launches as of the end of February 2019. This is an increase of 159,956 over the December 2017 report in 2017-
2018 pilot. Learning.com also indicates there have been 34,280 individual student accounts created, a 9,687 increase over the school year 2017-2018. The original thirty- six (36) eligible districts have approximately 105,890 students in K-8 grades. The student accounts created represent a thirty-two percent (32%) participation rate within this total original eligible population. Teacher accounts have been created by 3,506 teachers in the 209 individual schools using Learning.com.
The staff of Learning.com is responsible for the enrollment process (signing documents of agreement to share data and interface software programs) as well as the training. During the
2018-2019 year, the Learning.com South Carolina representative for the project resigned and a new person replaced her immediately. The transition was seamless for the evaluator in terms of information sharing. Each district was provided a direct contact regarding the change and new professional development opportunities were developed with a renewed since of urgency.
The following findings are based on data and observations of districts in the implementation stage; conversations with the Learning.com trainer; records provided by Learning.com, and visits to three districts that have used the software extensively over the three years of the pilot.
10
Findings
1. There continues a demonstrated and articulated need for instructional materials in the
areas of keyboarding, digital literacy and internet safety, inquiry learning through
technology integration and coding in schools among students K-8. Districts reported that
the number one current need is keyboarding application based on the need to prepare
students to take summative assessments on-line. Students without keyboarding skills are
clearly disadvantaged when responding to test questions on the state summative assessments that require a written or typed response.
Of the 34,280 student accounts created, 24,384 unique student launches occurred in the
Keyboarding module. This represents 71% of the overall student accounts created. Some
schools within a district may be using another software program or some districts/schools
do not understand the skill of keyboarding as an integral stepping stone to other technology skills and/or need in the workforce. This lack of understanding and application to real world scenarios demonstrates the need for state level visioning and articulation of
the technology skills continuum to districts, teachers, families and students.
Implementation schedules also support this foundational practice (or lack thereof) as
some districts continue to provide keyboarding teaching and practice during only lab time.
Other districts, primarily those with one-to-one computers have expectations for students
to use keyboarding skills during core classes (English Language Arts, math, science, and
social studies). This variety is not a Learning.com issue but rather a statewide resources,
expectations, and professional development issue.
11
Districts in South Carolina use a variety of resources to teach digital literacy and internet safety. The data clearly indicates the modules on these two topics in Learning.com are the second and third most frequently accessed modules.
The Inquiry modules that support projected-based learning continue to be used by only a few districts and students. In the districts in which the Inquiry modules were used, district leaders stated instructional technology integration is a focus of curriculum and instruction.
Rather than seeing the Inquiry modules as another thing to do, the Inquiry modules are integrated strategies of teaching and learning, creating more relevant and engaging lessons for students. This systemic approach coupled with extensive professional development advances the student experience far beyond the traditional textbook.
Teachers implementing the Inquiry modules stated planning time and ongoing professional development as critical aspects to full employment of the modules. District leaders referenced the need for state level guidance along with blue prints for computer science standards as well as instructional technology integration.
The number of Coding module unique users increased from the 2017-2018 year, yet in
2018-2019, the 8,924 students who engaged in a Coding lesson or launch is just over
25% of the total student launches this year. Of the approximately 105,890 students in the eligible districts, only 8.4% of them were introduced to Coding modules through
Learning.com.
In schools with only computer labs and few classroom computers (for use as centers or stations), time is the first barrier in exploring and/or practicing any or all of the modules.
And “even if we had a 1:1 distribution model, our teachers continue to need lots of training first,” as one district instructional leader shared. When asked about provision of
12
professional development, it is one more task for the teachers and time is reported as a barrier. Learning.com does provide a significant amount of professional development when requested by the districts. In the Professional Development by Learning.com Staff
(Appendix E), sixty-one sessions were provided between June 2018 and mid-April, 2019.
Web access and phone calls were also used to provide support to districts.
Along with the qualitative data, the quantitative data correlates this finding. Thirty-six
districts were offered the opportunity to implement the Palmetto Digital Learning Project
and 25 accepted affirming their need for this type of resource. This need does not exist in
isolation, but rather is an integral part of learning, if we are really preparing students in
South Carolina to meet the Profile of the Graduate and be college and career ready. The
need for digital learning resources is as critical as we once considered the textbook and
its adoption process.
While this finding documents the continuing demonstrated and articulated need for
instructional materials in the areas of keyboarding, digital literacy and internet safety,
inquiry learning through technology integration and coding in schools among students K-
8, the meeting of the need is not as simple as provision of the software or digital
instruction. The implementation is not in isolation. Rather the evidence demonstrates
mixed results across the districts. Other variables strongly impact the effectiveness and
the results for the students.
13
2. There continue to be significant unmet infrastructure needs in the provision of digital
learning environments for students. The infrastructure includes the hardware distribution
model developed by the district (types of devices and numbers per student as well as
teacher access), the backbone of the hardware distribution system (servers, routers,
wireless access points, back-up plans and staff to set-up and maintain) and the software
(programs, apps and other internet resources) available to the teachers and students. For
efficiency and effectiveness, this technology plan should be developed at the district level.
School level decisions may be included within the overall technology plan, but left
completely to the schools to procure resources, decisions are often made that lack
sustainability and big picture vision. While the technical needs of the Learning.com
software were verified before implementation began, the type of device, headphones, nor
frequency of use (impacts quantity in schools) were not addressed or districts did not have
a viable overall plan for instructional technology integration.
Technology support staff was noted as a need to fully implement Learning.com. The lab
setting is the place most students are using the software. In many incidences, there is a
lab manager in this setting. Because it is not a certified position, the capabilities and
knowledge of curriculum integration varies widely among schools and districts. In districts
with three years of strong implementation and positive results, capable and sufficient staff
was often the variable.
Support for the development of complex funding models, robust infrastructure blueprints
and necessary staffing patterns is absent at the state level. This information is
corroborated in the South Carolina Digital Learning Plan Report for the State’s K-12 Public
Education System, December 2018. In Section 4 – Infrastructure and Section 8 – Policy
and Funding, especially, the extensive data tables paint a picture of inconsistent,
14
sometimes inaccessible infrastructure (including Adequacy of Devices; Quality and
Availability; Robust Network Infrastructure; Adequate and Responsive Support; and
Formal Cycle for Review and Replacement, pp. 16-25).
3. The effectiveness of the software is evident, yet the results are mixed due to a variety of
factors outside the scope of the Learning.com product.
For the second year, Pre-and Post Assessments were administered to all 5th grade
students in the participating districts. The amount of time schools closed because of
Hurricane Michael in the fall impacted the schedule. Some districts had six months
between the pre- and post assessment; other districts had only four months between the
assessments. This was not the most significant variable, but rather the time actually using
the software during lessons and labs and the time spend taking the assessment itself
were the most impactful in determining results.
Since the time for each student to interact with the learning software varies within the
school and certainly by district, the results varied by district. Examination of the results
revealed only one post assessment result cell (of the six strands assessed) in which 50%
or more of the students demonstrated proficiency. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the
students in District F (See table below and full report in Appendix D: Learning.com 5th
Grade Pre- and Post Assessments, April 2019) scored Proficient in Communications and
collaboration. The other five strands include (1) Creativity and innovation, (2) Research
and information fluency, (3) Critical thinking, problem solving and decision-making, (4)
Digital citizenship, and (5) Technology operations and concepts.
15
Post Test Analysis_2018-19 Palmetto Digital Literacy Program Apri 5, 2019
Critical Thinking, Problem Solving Research and Technology Communication Creativity and and Decision Digital Information Operations and and Collaboration Innovation Making Citizenship Fluency Concepts PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest District A 36% 46% 27% 19% 28% 21% 21% 23% 30% 39% 32% 33% District B 22% 38% 20% 21% 21% 26% 15% 24% 26% 29% 17% 26% District C 28% 50% 32% 22% 25% 32% 21% 36% 32% 42% 23% 34% District D 27% 40% 18% 19% 13% 18% 12% 19% 19% 26% 17% 21% District E 27% 34% 20% 11% 16% 19% 16% 15% 19% 22% 18% 13% District F 28% 58% 29% 31% 27% 47% 25% 46% 26% 49% 24% 45% District G 18% 40% 11% 14% 12% 19% 14% 23% 14% 21% 14% 26% District H 18% 47% 24% 16% 8% 16% 10% 24% 22% 32% 8% 29% District I 37% 43% 36% 21% 31% 33% 24% 33% 33% 36% 30% 37%
Program Average 27% 47% 25% 23% 23% 32% 20% 31% 24% 37% 21% 33%
These test strands were described earlier. Improvement noted in each strand with the exception of one. The "Creativity and Innovation" strand builds on digital literacy skills and moves them into real life applications. These project and inquiry-based lessons aren't utilized as much in a lab setting. With new standards being mandatory next year, we hope to see more classroom teachers involved and would anticipate this strand's proficiency to increase.
16
Summary of Findings
Schools and districts report a strong need for keyboarding software due to the demands
placed on students while taking online state assessments. Learning.com meets this need.
Schools and districts also report the internet safety and digital literacy modules are being
used to fulfill the need for this basic teaching requirement in instructional technology
integration.
Beyond the implementation of these modules, the use of other modules within this resource is sporadic. In several districts, there exists comprehensive instructional technology plans; these plans extend to curriculum planning at the high schools with backwards design development for coding, computer science, engineering, and other STEM sequences. There also exists in these district technology plans a structured determination for support services in both technology staff areas (infrastructure development and maintenance) and instructional technology staff areas (using technology in teaching and learning as well as the development of technology curriculum).
Desired results – student achievement, proficiency in technology skills, development of early workforce readiness – are not extensively evident as a result of this planning in the districts.
Throughout this pilot, several districts expressed the need for some models, guidance and/or
resources to develop and implement robust instructional technology plans and programs for
the district. Wide variance in instructional technology integration plans impacts student
learning and achievement. Ultimately, the opportunities for students depend on both this
planning and provision.
17
18
Recommendations
1. The three-year pilot should be closed and the decision to integrate Learning.com should
be determined at the district level. The variables impacting the effectiveness of the
software are primarily located at the district level. Several districts have chosen to fully
engage in the software, implementing it with fidelity, and supporting the technology
infrastructure as well as the professional development needs of teachers and staff. In
these districts, reported results correlate with most usage time as well as growth in
achievement. If districts that participated in the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program do not
have the financial means to purchase Learning.com, then the state should consider
making direct grants to districts for the service. Districts, in turn, would be responsible for
demonstrating fidelity with implementation.
2. Given that the examination of this software has revealed the wide variety of hardware
distribution models and technology plans, guidance and support from the state should be
provided for districts. There are several models of distribution that are effective with
different budgets. Priority planning must focus on student learning and teacher
preparation. Time for use, ease to maintain and access are other considerations. This
planning must be a comprehensive examination and determination of hardware
distribution for students (for example, 1:1 that goes home, 3:1 laptops for students
available for teachers to check-out or 4 laptops per classroom to be used in small
group/center work, etc.). In addition, the plan must include access to wireless, back up
plans, and security.
19
Assistance in budget review and planning should also be offered from the state level.
Many of the districts observed in this study, have small staff and little capacity to develop
creative budgets using multiple funding sources. Districts with less than full scale
technology plans risk large gaps in student preparation for global opportunities in the
workforce.
3. Technology as a tool and as an area of study must be the focus of instructional technology
integration for students. Any effective software to teach critical skills included in the Profile
of the SC Graduate, is not an add-on, but must be systemic to all aspects of teaching and
learning Pre-K - 12. The world of our students and their future is inclusive of technology
tools, software, devices. Students with an understanding of multiple areas of technology,
from coding to repair to job integration, have a distinct advantage in the job market.
Students without this access and understanding are at a disadvantage; the achievement
and poverty gap will grow wider. The disparity in technology support devices, such as
keyboards and headphones, among the districts significantly impacts the students’
chances for achievement in the modules of Learning.com as well as other software
program.
Computer Science Standards, including coding, multi-media, and analytics, must be a
part of the student learning experiences in order to prepare each student for the global
workforce market. There were alarmingly small number of students (less that 10%) who
were engaged in the coding modules in Learning.com. If this is any indication of teaching
in our classrooms, it will result in a skills gap greater than exist in 2019. South Carolina
will not attract new business and industry, nor meet the needs of existing employers.
20
Conclusion
In summary, the software product Learning.com certainly provides several needed and
effective instructional resources to students and teachers. This is documented in some of the pilot districts. Over the three years of the pilot, findings revealed a variety of other factors influencing the successful implementation and its results.
Usage time, integration with core content subjects (especially English Language Arts –
ELA), infrastructure support and leadership are the most significant factors. These vary widely among the districts. Thus, each district should determine its own commitment to the variables and decide whether to use Learning.com. At the state level, guidance and support is needed for the smallest districts. Continuing to pay for the software alone is neither prudent nor will it result in greater results. However, school districts with limited financial means that want to use the product with fidelity should be eligible for state grants to support the initiative.
Overall, the pilot project demonstrated effectiveness of the software in some districts and revealed several important aspects of South Carolina’s overall instructional technology
(or lack thereof). Ultimately, the engagement of the software is a district decision and commitment; the overall instructional technology landscape and plan is a state level decision and commitment.
21
22
Appendix A:
Reference Resources
Article on Arkansas efforts (know you have seen their plan); competition for economic development https://www.the74million.org/article/how-arkansas-is-teaming-up-with-teachers-facebook- other-tech-titans-to-rethink-computer-science-education/
Future Ready Schools - Dashboard for creating a plan https://dashboard.futurereadyschools.org/framework
National Conference of State Legislators (technology in schools) http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/technology-in-schools-digital-devices-textbook- funds-educators635678003.aspx
South Carolina Digital Learning Plan Report for the State’s K-12 Public Education System, December 2018. https://eoc.sc.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/Technology/South%20Carolina%20Digital% 20Learning%20Plan%20Report%20FINAL(1).pdf
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Instructional Media and Technology https://dpi.wi.gov/imt/toolset
23
24
Appendix B: Profile of the South Carolina Graduate
25
26
Appendix C:
Learning.com February Monthly Report (through February 28, 2019)
27
28
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program February 2019 Monthly Report
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program For the third consecutive school year, the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) is collaborating with Learning.com (LCOM) to implement the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program in school districts in the Abbeville equity lawsuit or districts/schools with at least an 80% or more poverty index. School districts or schools may volunteer to participate in the program. The objectives of the program are to: • Prepare students with the digital literacy and 21st century skills necessary to be successful in school, college and careers. Included will be online K-8 curriculum that supports the instructions of the 12 Essential Digital Literacy Skills; Computational Thinking, Coding Fundamental, Computer Fundamentals, Mouse Basics, Keyboarding, Online Safety, Web Browsing, Email and Online Communication, Visual Mapping, Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Databases, and Presentations. • Prepare students for success on the next generation online assessments. • Support current state initiatives, including the implementation of South Carolina Computer Science Standards, as to increase the effectiveness of the use of technology and digital resources in the classroom. Focus is placed on assisting educators, through training and professional development, to better integrate technology and digital resources in the teaching and learning environment, while also increasing the digital literacy and 21st century skills of each student.
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for Palmetto Digital Literacy Program may include: • KPI 1 – Accurate and timely provision of all qualifying districts that choose to participate. • KPI 2 – Upload and synchronization of student information for all qualifying districts that choose to participate. • KPI 3 – Measurement of student access and use of digital literacy curriculum with a goal of 1,000,000 content/lesson launches in the 2018-19 school year. • KPI 4 – Delivery of high-quality and relevant training, implementation services, and ongoing support to participating districts in either a face-to-face or online modality. • KPI 5 – Measurement and reporting of 5th grade student digital literacy proficiency through the use of pre- and post-assessments (21st Century Skills Assessment) with a goal of demonstrable increase in proficiency based on the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students. School District Participation As of the beginning of the 2018-19 school year AND based upon the revision of the statewide poverty index definition, there are 35 school districts, comprised of 213 individual K-8 school buildings serving approximately 105,890 students in grades K-8 that qualify to participate in the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program – 25 choosing to participate. Many districts who had qualified to participate during the 2017-18 school year were taken by surprise by the late change in the poverty index definition and had planned to continue to incorporate the Palmetto Program into their 2018-19 instructional plans. Rather than discontinue this critical program on late notice to those districts, LCOM has chosen to continue to serve those that are interested at no cost to them or to the State of South Carolina – 7 additional participating districts. This decision will be evaluated in collaboration with the EOC over the course of this year.
Abbeville Allendale Anderson 3 Bamberg 1 Bamberg 2 Barnwell 19 Barnwell 45 Berkeley Calhoun Cherokee Chester Chesterfield Clarendon 1 Clarendon 2 Clarendon 3 Colleton Darlington Dillon 3 Dillon 4 Dorchester 4 Fairfield Florence 1 Florence 2 Florence 3 Florence 4 Florence 5 Greenwood 51 Hampton 1 Hampton 2 Jasper Laurens 55 Laurens 56 Lee Lexington 4 Marion Marlboro McCormick Orangeburg 3 Orangeburg 5 Saluda Union Williamsburg Williston
1
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program February 2019 Monthly Report
At the request of EOC, LCOM has initiated outreach to all districts that have either not responded to the availability of the program or have chosen to not participate in an effort to understand the reason for not participating. LCOM will provide the results of this effort as soon as information becomes available. Product and Services Provided to Participating Districts • 21st Century Skills Inventory – 21st Century Skills Inventory assesses elementary (5th grade) and middle school (8th grade) students’ grasp of 21st century skills, including; technology operations, information literacy, digital citizenship, critical thinking, decision making, creativity and innovation. • EasyTech – A comprehensive K-8, online curriculum that teaches students the 11 essential digital literacy skills including; Computer Fundamentals, Keyboarding, Email and Online Communication, Web Browsing, Digital Citizenship, Word Processing, Presentations, Spread Sheets, Databases, Visual Mapping, and Computational Thinking. • Inquiry – A K-8 digital literacy and 21st century skills curriculum with six technology-infused projects per grade level in ELA, math, science, and social studies. Projects help students learn about productivity tools, internet research, multimedia presentations, and online communication within their core subject areas. • EasyCode Foundations (Coding Pilot – Elementary Schools) - Introduces students to coding through a game-based environment, where students learn to code by solving coding challenges. Once their coding skills are mastered, students apply them to build their own apps and games. With the help of detailed lesson plans and interactive resources, any teacher can confidently help their students learn the basics of coding, even if they have no prior experience with this subject. • EasyCode Pillars (Coding Pilot – Middle Schools) - An interactive curriculum that helps students learn key coding principles using Python, an industry leading programming language. In each lesson, students complete a project through a series of activities that include coding challenges, debugging practice, and quizzes. Each lesson ends with an additional coding exercise in which students create their own project applying the skills learned. In addition to basic coding principles, students learn how to animate objects, play sounds, and use mouse and keyboard input. • Curriculum Publisher - Allows resequencing of existing content and addition of 3rd party content/learning objects. Curriculum can be shared across schools or campuses. • Teacher Training and Professional Development – Onsite professional development workshops, as well as a vast array of on-demand resources such as webinars, downloadable recordings, and online courses designed to address school’s unique instructional goals will be provided. Year-to-Date and Monthly Statistics Student/Teacher Data Prior Month YTD (2/1/19) Current YTD (3/1/19) Student Accounts Created 31,660 34,280 Student Content Launches 775,934 960,349 Content Launches Per Student 22.3 26.3 Teacher Accounts Created 881 982 Teacher Content Launches 2,550 2,677 Content Launches Per Teacher 7.1 6.47
As can be seen from the above table, month over month increases are see with a slight decrease in the average content launches per teacher.
2
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program February 2019 Monthly Report
3
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program February 2019 Monthly Report
Skill Category Usage (YTD) The below graph identifies the skill categories most utilized YTD, as measured by student content launches.
5th Grade Digital Literacy Pre-Assessment Result (YTD) Participating districts are to conduct a pre-assessment of all 5th grade students receiving digital literacy instruction. This pre-assessment, the Learning.com 21st Century Skills Assessment (21CSA), measures students’ skills as defined by the 2014 International Society for Technology in Education Standards (ISTE- S Standards). The standards are divided into six strands; 1. Creativity and Innovation - Students demonstrate creative thinking, construct knowledge, and develop innovative products and processes using technology. 2. Communication and Collaboration - Students use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others. 3. Research and Information Fluency - Students apply digital tools to gather, evaluate, and use information.
4
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program February 2019 Monthly Report
4. Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making - Students use critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources. 5. Digital Citizenship - Students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior. 6. Technology Operations and Concepts - Students demonstrate a sound understanding of technology concepts, systems, and operations. The table below provides district-level proficiency data for those districts that pre-assessed their 5th grade students. The end of November represents the completion of the pre-assessment period, thus, LCOM will focus efforts to support and train districts on continued instruction in anticipation for a post- assessment, which is currently underway is expected to be completed by March 30, 2019. District Proficiency Rate By Strand
5
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program February 2019 Monthly Report
Trainings Delivered or Scheduled Since June of 2018, Learning.com has been supporting the participating school districts through onsite training workshops. To date, 52 sessions have been conducted by Learning.com local area resource.
Date Delivered District Audience Topic June 21, 2018 Jasper County Classroom Teacher Leads EasyTech & Inquiry August 15, 2018 Hampton 2 ES& MS Computer Lab Managers EasyTech Review August 20, 2018 Clarendon 3 Elementary Computer Lab Manager EasyTech New Year Set-up August 29, 2018 McCormick Middle School Classroom Teachers EasyTech integration into the Core August 30, 2018 McCormick Elementary Classroom Teachers EasyTech integration into the Core September 4, 2018 Berkeley Principal Presentation EasyTech & Inquiry as a Pilot September 5, 2018 Berkeley Curriculum Team, APs, Instructional Coaches EasyTech through Google Classroom September 10, 2018 Barnwell 45 Classroom Teacher Leads Inquiry September 17, 2018 Barnwell 45 Classroom Teacher Leads Inquiry September 27, 2018 Laurens 55 Computer Lab Managers EasyTech Q&A October 1, 2018 Laurens 55 Hickory Tavern - New Computer Lab Manager EasyTech for New Users October 2, 2018 Laurens 55 Gray Court Owings- New Lab Manager EasyTech for New Users October 3, 2018 Calhoun Computer Lab Manager EasyTech for New Users October 12, 2018 Florence 3 Computer Lab Managers & Media Specialists EasyTech for New Users October 22, 2018 Chester Instructional Fair EasyTech to meet DL& CS Standards October 31, 2018 Marlboro Leadership team - Supt, principals, media EasyTech integration into the Core specialists November 19, 2018 Dillon 4 New District Coordinator EasyTech for Coordinators November 27, 2018 Berkeley District Coordinators Technical Support Call January 14, 2019 Dorchester 4 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 15, 2019 Hampton 1 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 15, 2019 Hampton 2 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 15, 2019 Jasper District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 16, 2019 Barnwell 45 District Coordinator, Curriculum Coordinator & Mid-Year Review Supt January 17, 2019 Allendale District Coordinator and Lab Manager Implementation Planning and Quickstart Training for Lab Manager January 18, 2019 Bamberg 1 District Leadership and Principals Implementation Planning January 22, 2019 Marlboro District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 23, 2019 Florence 2 District Coordinator and Supt Mid-Year Review and QuickStart for Lab Manager January 24, 2019 Laurens 55 District Coordinator, Technical Coordinator, Lab Mid-Year Review and Computer Manager Lab Observation January 25, 2019 Anderson 3 District Coordinator and LMS Flat Rock El Mid-Year Review and Implementation Planning January 28, 2019 Clarendon 3 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review and Computer Lab Observation January 28, 2019 Calhoun District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 29, 2019 Clarendon 2 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 29, 2019 Fairfield District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 30, 2019 Chester District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 30, 2019 Orangeburg 3 District Coordinator Implementation Planning January 30, 2019 Orangeburg 3 District Leadership Team EasyTech for New Users January 31, 2019 McCormick Superintendent Mid-Year Review February 1, 2019 Hampton 1 Instructional Coaches EasyTech for New Users February 4, 2019 Berkeley Math Coach Easy Tech for Google Classroom February 6, 2019 Florence 5 Leadership Team Implementation Planning February 11, 2019 Clarendon 3 Computer Lab Manager EasyCode for New Users February 12, 2019 Marlboro Classroom Teachers EasyTech Review February 13, 2019 Clarendon 3 Computer Lab Manager EasyTech for New Users February 14, 2019 Marion School Leadership Teams EasyTech for New Users February 15, 2019 Marion School Leadership Teams EasyTech for New Users February 19, 2019 Anderson 3 District Coordinator & Adult Ed Coordinator Implementation Planning February 19, 2019 Florence 5 School Technology Team EasyTech for New Users February 21, 2019 Colleton District Coordinator Mid-Year Review & Implementation Planning February 26, 2019 Marlboro Classroom Teachers EasyTech Review February 27, 2019 Bamberg 1 Leadership Team EasyTech for New Users February 28, 2019 Hampton 2 District Coordinator Curriculum Planning for Online Test 6
Palmetto Digital Literacy Program February 2019 Monthly Report
Prep Scheduled District Audience Topic March 14, 2019 Laurens 55 Computer Lab Managers EasyTech Follow up Intensive Implementation Support with Dr. Lee D’Andrea Barnwell 45 and McCormick County are currently participating in an intensive implementation support service facilitated by Dr. Lee D’Andrea and Learning.com. These two districts have received in-person visits from Dr. D’Andrea in order to better understand how technology is being utilized within the district with follow up trainings delivered by Learning.com targeting their identified needs. Throughout the course of the school year, district staff will be in close contact with Dr. D’Andrea and Learning.com to continue their guided implementation and support. Coding Pilot Update In an effort to facilitate adoption of the new South Carolina Computer Science Standards, a select number of schools indicated interest in participating in a coding pilot. Over the course of the school year, Learning.com will be monitoring implementation of both elementary and middle school coding curriculum in order to make recommendations to expand the pilot to the entire program. Participating schools will receive additional training and support throughout the remainder of the school year.
Below is the current list of districts/schools participating in the coding pilot.
7
Appendix D:
Report on 5th Grade Pre- and Post Assessments
37
38
2018-19 Assessment Analysis_Palmetto Digital Literacy Program
During the 2018-19 school year, Learning.com worked with the following districts to provide access to a comprehensive K-8 digital literacy curriculum that focuses on 12 essential skill areas: Computational Thinking, Coding Fundamentals, Computer Fundamentals, Keyboarding, Digital Citizenship and Online Safety, Web Browsing, Email and Online Communication, Visual Mapping, Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Databases, and Presentations. These districts include:
Allendale Florence 1 Anderson 3 Florence 2 Bamberg 1 Florence 3 Barnwell 45 Florence 5 Berkeley Greenwood 51 Calhoun Hampton 1 Cherokee Hampton 2 Chester Jasper Chesterfield Laurens 55 Clarendon 2 Marion Clarendon 3 Marlboro Colleton McCormick Dillon 3 Orangeburg 3 Dillon 4 Union Dorchester 4 Fairfield
The prescribed curriculum used for each district was not mandated; therefore, some schools/districts chose to focus on Keyboarding, others focused on Online Safety, Coding or Business Apps, etc. South Carolina Computer Science and Digital Literacy Standards (approved in May of 2017) were developed to expand availability of computer science education to all students in South Carolina in response to the growing number of employment opportunities related to the field of computer science and related areas available in the state. The standards represent a balance of conceptual and procedural knowledge and specify the computer science content that students will master in each grade level. This school year (2018-19) served as a “bridge year” to implement the new standards. Many of the districts served by the Palmetto Digital Literacy Program chose to delay curricular decisions to wait for standards to become mandatory (next school year), even though Learning.Com provided a customized alignment to the new standards for districts to follow, and offered professional development for implementing. We are excited for these new standards to be fully implemented next year, as we can be assured each of the components of our curriculum will, in turn, be implemented.
2018-19 Assessment Analysis_Palmetto Digital Literacy Program
Regardless of the Learning.com curriculum pathways chosen for implementation, the Pre and Post test used for the summative assessment was the same for each participating district. Only 5th grade students were assessed, and the data included with this report represents only those students who completed all parts of the pre and post test. The assessment chosen, 21st Century Skills Assessment (21CSA), measures students’ skills as defined by the 2014 International Society for Technology in Education Standards (ISTE-S Standards). The standards are divided into six strands:
1. Creativity and innovation - Students demonstrate creative thinking, construct knowledge, and develop innovative products and processes using technology.
2. Communication and collaboration - Students use digital media and environments to communicate and work collaboratively, including at a distance, to support individual learning and contribute to the learning of others.
3. Research and information fluency - Students apply digital tools to gather, evaluate, and use information.
4. Critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making - Students use critical thinking skills to plan and conduct research, manage projects, solve problems, and make informed decisions using appropriate digital tools and resources.
5. Digital citizenship - Students understand human, cultural, and societal issues related to technology and practice legal and ethical behavior.
6. Technology operations and concepts - Students demonstrate a sound understanding of technology concepts, systems, and operations.
Most implementations are served by a pull-out lab environment where students visit once a week for 45 minutes, monitored by paraprofessionals. As state standards become mandatory, we expect to see more participation and coordination with classroom teachers. The “creative and innovation” standard noted above is best served by extending what they learn in the lab to the classroom under the direction of a certified teacher. Our integration with GOOGLE CLASSROOM has helped us reach a number of classroom teachers as they don’t have to learn a new platform to distribute quality lessons to their students.
We’ve seen more interest this year in customizing the curriculum to fit unique needs. Keyboarding remains a popular option as districts begin their digital literacy implementations. More and more are finding that typing extended passages for online testing is a hindrance for students, and are turning to our keyboarding lessons to meet that need. A number of these participating districts are now ensuring that e-rate requirements are being met for online safety. Cyberbullying lessons have seen increased use. A popular module recently has been PREPARING FOR ONLINE ASSESSMENTS as schools prepare students for testing in May. More interest in CODING/COMPUTATIONAL THINKING as well, as teachers realize they don’t have to be computer science specialists to turn kids loose to master coding and create their own games. Students living in poverty face a number of challenges, and mastering digital literacy skills can be their ticket out.
Post Test Analysis_2018-19 Palmetto Digital Literacy Program Apri 5, 2019
NUMBER OF 5th GRADERS WITH Pre Test Post Test PRE AND POST Average Average DISTRICT TEST RESULTS Proficiency Proficiency Growth
District A 131 27% 31% 4% District B 106 24% 31% 7% District C 37 38% 41% 3% District D 143 16% 25% 9% District E* 178 22% 21% -1% District F 517 30% 53% 23% District G 37 14% 27% 13% District H 39 36% 39% 2% District I** 175 36% 33% -3%
Cumulative Program Totals 1363 27% 39% 12%
*District E struggled with a number of students missing class due to weather related issues. They also had a change in coordinator position in December. * *District I required all students, including Self-Contained, to take the assessment. These students were not given any accomodations for test-taking.
Summary of Pre/Post Proficiency 60% 53% 50% 41% 38% 39% 40% 36% 36% 33% 31% 31% 30% 27% 27% 30% 24% 25% 22% 21% 20% 16% 14% Average ProficiencyAverage 10%
0% District A District B District C District D District E* District F District G District H District I** School District
PreTest PostTest
Report Executed: 4/8/2019 © 2019 Learning.com Page 1/4 Post Test Analysis_2018-19 Palmetto Digital Literacy Program Apri 5, 2019 Average Average Proficiency Average Average Proficiency when over 23- Proficiency Proficiency when over 40 40 unique when 11-22 when 0-10 NUMBER OF unique items items unique items unique items 5th GRADERS previously previously previously previously WITH PRE Post Test launched launched launched launched AND POST Average within within within within DISTRICT TEST RESULTS Proficiency curriculum curriculum curriculum curriculum District A 131 31% n/a n/a 31% 16% District B 106 31% 32% 18% 0% 0% District C 37 41% 50% 100% 67% 22% District D 143 25% 26% 27% 25% 18% District E 178 21% n/a n/a 13% 19% District F 517 53% 82% 67% 47% 33% District G 37 27% n/a 100% 0% 25% District H 39 39% n/a 46% 20% 0% District I 175 33% 44% 30% 28% 0%
Cumulative Program Totals 1363 39% 50% 42% 32% 25%
These results show a direct correlation between post test scores and the usage of the digital literacy curriculum. The greater the usage, the higher the post test score.
Post Test Proficiency Correlated to Curriculum Usage 60%
over 40 launches - 50% 50% 23-40 Launches - 42% 40% 11-22 Launches - 32%
Less than 10 Launches - 25% 30%
20% Average Proficiency PostTest 10%
0% Number of Unique Curriculum Launches Post Test Analysis_2018-19 Palmetto Digital Literacy Program Apri 5, 2019
Avg Proficiency Avg Proficiency when students when students Avg Proficiency when spent longer spent between Avg Proficiency when students spent Post Test than 45 mins 33-45 mins students spent between between 15-24 mins Average completing the completing the 24-33 mins completing completing the DISTRICT Proficiency PostTest PostTest the PostTest PostTest District A 31% 44% 50% 29% 10% District B 31% 43% 36% 18% 3% District C 41% 60% 31% 36% 0% District D 25% 59% 45% 19% 7% District E 21% 25% 32% 25% 4% District F 53% 60% 60% 47% 20% District G 27% 60% 30% 33% 0% District H 39% 20% 50% 50% 0% District I 33% 56% 41% 27% 5%
Cumulative Program Totals 39% 52% 48% 33% 8%
These results show a direct correlation between post test scores and the amount of time students dedicate to the test. The more time students commit, the higher the post test score. We found this year's test adminstration window to be difficult for students. Our testing window overlapped with MAP benchmark testing and students were not motivated to do their best.
Post Test Results Correlated to Time Spent taking Test 60% Greater than 45 mins - 52% 33-45 mins - 48% 50%
40% 24-33 mins - 33% 30%
20%
15-24 mins - 8% 10% Average PostTest Proficiency
0% Time Spent on PostTest Post Test Analysis_2018-19 Palmetto Digital Literacy Program Apri 5, 2019
Critical Thinking, Problem Solving Research and Technology Communication and Creativity and and Decision Digital Information Operations and Collaboration Innovation Making Citizenship Fluency Concepts
PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest PreTest PostTest District A 36% 46% 27% 19% 28% 21% 21% 23% 30% 39% 32% 33% District B 22% 38% 20% 21% 21% 26% 15% 24% 26% 29% 17% 26% District C 28% 50% 32% 22% 25% 32% 21% 36% 32% 42% 23% 34% District D 27% 40% 18% 19% 13% 18% 12% 19% 19% 26% 17% 21% District E 27% 34% 20% 11% 16% 19% 16% 15% 19% 22% 18% 13% District F 28% 58% 29% 31% 27% 47% 25% 46% 26% 49% 24% 45% District G 18% 40% 11% 14% 12% 19% 14% 23% 14% 21% 14% 26% District H 18% 47% 24% 16% 8% 16% 10% 24% 22% 32% 8% 29% District I 37% 43% 36% 21% 31% 33% 24% 33% 33% 36% 30% 37%
Program Average 27% 47% 25% 23% 23% 32% 20% 31% 24% 37% 21% 33%
These test strands were described earlier. Improvement noted in each strand with the exception of one. The "Creativity and Innovation" strand builds on digital literacy skills and moves them into real life applications. These project and inquiry-based lessons aren't utilized as much in a lab setting. With new standards being mandatory next year, we hope to see more classroom teachers involved and would anticipate this strand's proficiency to increase.
PRE-POST TEST STRAND ANALYSIS
47%
37%
33% 32% 31%
27% 25% 24% 23% 23% 20% 21%
PRETEST POSTTEST PRETEST POSTTEST PRETEST POSTTEST PRETEST POSTTEST PRETEST POSTTEST PRETEST POSTTEST COMMUNICATION AND CREATIVITY AND CRITICAL THINKING, DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY COLLABORATION INNOVATION PROBLEM SOLVING AND INFORMATION FLUENCY OPERATIONS AND DECISION MAKING CONCEPTS
Report Executed: 4/8/2019 © 2019 Learning.com Page 4/4 Appendix E:
Professional Development Record for 2018-2019 Digital Learning Project
Date District Audience Topic
June 21, 2018 Jasper County Classroom Teacher Leads EasyTech & Inquiry August 15, 2018 Hampton 2 ES& MS Computer Lab Managers EasyTech Review August 20, 2018 Clarendon 3 Elementary Computer Lab Manager EasyTech New Year Set-up August 29, 2018 McCormick Middle School Classroom Teachers EasyTech integration into the Core August 30, 2018 McCormick Elementary Classroom Teachers EasyTech integration into the Core September 4, 2018 Berkeley Principal Presentation EasyTech & Inquiry as a Pilot September 5, 2018 Berkeley Curriculum Team, APs, Instructional EasyTech through Google Coaches Classroom September 10, 2018 Barnwell 45 Classroom Teacher Leads Inquiry September 17, 2018 Barnwell 45 Classroom Teacher Leads Inquiry September 27, 2018 Laurens 55 Computer Lab Managers EasyTech Q&A October 1, 2018 Laurens 55 Hickory Tavern - New Computer Lab EasyTech for New Users Manager October 2, 2018 Laurens 55 Gray Court Owings- New Lab Manager EasyTech for New Users October 3, 2018 Calhoun Computer Lab Manager EasyTech for New Users October 12, 2018 Florence 3 Computer Lab Managers & Media EasyTech for New Users Specialists October 22, 2018 Chester Instructional Fair EasyTech to meet DL& CS Standards October 31, 2018 Marlboro Leadership team - Supt, principals, media EasyTech integration into the specialists Core November 19, 2018 Dillon 4 New District Coordinator EasyTech for Coordinators November 27, 2018 Berkeley District Coordinators Technical Support Call January 14, 2019 Dorchester 4 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 15, 2019 Hampton 1 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 15, 2019 Hampton 2 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 15, 2019 Jasper District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 16, 2019 Barnwell 45 District Coordinator, Curriculum Mid-Year Review Coordinator & Supt January 17, 2019 Allendale District Coordinator and Lab Manager Implementation Planning and Quickstart Training for Lab Manager January 18, 2019 Bamberg 1 District Leadership and Principals Implementation Planning January 22, 2019 Marlboro District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 23, 2019 Florence 2 District Coordinator and Supt Mid-Year Review and QuickStart for Lab Manager January 24, 2019 Laurens 55 District Coordinator, Technical Mid-Year Review and Coordinator, Lab Manager Computer Lab Observation January 25, 2019 Anderson 3 District Coordinator and LMS Flat Rock El Mid-Year Review and Implementation Planning January 28, 2019 Clarendon 3 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review and Computer Lab Observation January 28, 2019 Calhoun District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 29, 2019 Clarendon 2 District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 29, 2019 Fairfield District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 30, 2019 Chester District Coordinator Mid-Year Review January 30, 2019 Orangeburg 3 District Coordinator Implementation Planning January 30, 2019 Orangeburg 3 District Leadership Team EasyTech for New Users January 31, 2019 McCormick Superintendent Mid-Year Review February 1, 2019 Hampton 1 Instructional Coaches EasyTech for New Users February 4, 2019 Berkeley Math Coach Easy Tech for Google Classroom
45
Date District Audience Topic
February 6, 2019 Florence 5 Leadership Team Implementation Planning February 11, 2019 Clarendon 3 Computer Lab Manager EasyCode for New Users February 12, 2019 Marlboro Classroom Teachers EasyTech Review February 13, 2019 Clarendon 3 Computer Lab Manager EasyTech for New Users February 14, 2019 Marion School Leadership Teams EasyTech for New Users February 15, 2019 Marion School Leadership Teams EasyTech for New Users February 19, 2019 Anderson 3 District Coordinator & Adult Ed Implementation Planning Coordinator February 19, 2019 Florence 5 School Technology Team EasyTech for New Users February 21, 2019 Colleton District Coordinator Mid-Year Review & Implementation Planning February 26, 2019 Marlboro Classroom Teachers EasyTech Review February 27, 2019 Bamberg 1 Leadership Team EasyTech for New Users February 28, 2019 Hampton 2 District Coordinator Curriculum Planning for Online Test Prep March 8, 2019 Dillon 4 District Coordinator Curriculum Planning for Online Test Prep March 12, 2019 Anderson 3 Adult Ed Teachers EasyTech for New Users March 13, 2019 Greenwood District Coordinator Curriculum Planning for Online Test Prep March 13, 2019 Marion School Leadership Team EasyTech for New School Coordinators March 14, 2019 Laurens 55 Computer Lab Managers EasyTech Followup March 28, 2019 Calhoun School Leadership Team EasyTech Review April 2, 2019 Clarendon 2 Classroom visits – Manning Elementary Easy Code observations April 3, 2019, Clarendon 2 Classroom visits – Manning Junior HS Easy Code observations April 9, 2019 Marion Alternative Teachers from Success EasyTech for New School Academy Coordinators and Teachers April 11, 2019 Chester District Coordinator Wayfind Teacher Assessment Training
46
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members, EOC
FROM: Melanie Barton Dr. Lee D’Andrea
DATE: May 22, 2019
IN RE: eLearning for School Make-Up Days
Proviso 1A.83. of the 2019-20 General Appropriation bill, H.4000, as recommended by the Conference Committee on May 20, 2019 and adopted by the House and Senate, requires the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to oversee implementation of the second year of a pilot program for alternative methods of instruction for school make-up days. The eLearning pilot will expand from the original five districts that participated in school year 2018-19 (Anderson 5; Kershaw; Pickens; Spartanburg 1 and Spartanburg 7), which are referred to as Cohort 1, to another five to ten districts that will comprise Cohort 2. Ellen Weaver CHAIR Cohort 1, in collaboration with Dr. D’Andrea, created the attached Bob Couch application form and scoring rubric for the second year of the pilot. Cohort VICE CHAIR 1 offered to review and score the applications, insisting upon anonymity of Terry Alexander all applicants; therefore, no reference to the district or to any employee of April Allen the district will be included. Finally, Cohort 1 has agreed to provide technical Raye Felder assistance to all new districts participating in the pilot. In return, the EOC Barbara B. Hairfield will allocate at least $5,000 to each Cohort 1district to offset the cost. Greg Hembree
Kevin L. Johnson
Applications were mailed and emailed to all districts on May 22, 2019. All John W. Matthews, Jr. completed applications must be returned to the EOC office by June 14, Henry McMaster 2019. Upon Cohort 1 scoring the applications, districts will be notified in mid-July of their acceptance into the pilot program. Proviso 1A.83 along with Brian Newsome the application and scoring rubric are attached. Also attached is the report Neil C. Robinson, Jr. on the eLearning pilot that was submitted to the Senate Finance Committee Molly Spearman and House Ways and Means Committee on May 7, 2019 regarding John C. Stockwell implementation of the pilot program in school year 2018-19. Patti J. Tate
Scott Turner
Attachments
Melanie D. Barton EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Proviso 1A.83. of the Conference Committee Report 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill, H.4000
1A.83. (SDE-EIA: Digital Learning Plan) The Education Oversight Committee is responsible for implementing the second year of a pilot program for alternative methods of instruction for make-up days. The five school districts that participated in the initial pilot program in the prior fiscal year shall have the option of continuing to participate during the current fiscal year. As a condition of their continued participation, these five school districts shall assist the committee in reviewing and approving additional school districts to participate in the second year of the pilot program and shall provide technical assistance and support to new districts participating in the pilot. From funds available to the committee, the committee is authorized to allocate funds to the five districts for providing technical support to the new districts participating in the pilot program. All districts participating in the pilot in the current fiscal year shall utilize alternative methods of instruction which may include, but are not limited to, online or virtual instruction for scheduled make up time. All make up time must reflect the number of hours of the make-up days the instruction will cover. All make up time must meet state requirements for elementary and secondary school days. All districts shall continue to report to the Department of Education all days missed, reasons for the absences, days made up, and now the alternative method of instruction used. The Education Oversight Committee shall work with the Educational Television Commission (ETV) and the State Library to utilize and coordinate available ETV and State Library resources and explore alternative means of delivery to districts that may lack proper access to online instruction. All school districts shall report the following information to the Education Oversight Committee by April 1, 2020: method(s) of implementation utilized, advantages and disadvantages of the method(s) used, any feedback received from administrators, teachers, parents or guardians, and recommendations for how the program can be implemented statewide. By June 1, 2020 the Education Oversight Committee shall report to the Governor, the General Assembly, the Department of Education, and the State Board of Education a plan for implementing the eLearning program for make-up days statewide.
Pursuant to Proviso 1A.83. of the 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill as included in the Conference Committee report and as approved by the House and Senate, the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) is responsible for implementing the second year of a pilot program for alternative methods of instruction for school make-up days. The five school districts that participated in the eLearning pilot in school year 2018-19 (Anderson 5, Kershaw, Pickens, Spartanburg 1 and Spartanburg 7) will assist the EOC in reviewing and approving additional school districts, between five and ten districts, to participate in the pilot program in school year 2019-20. Decisions will be finalized at the by mid-July. Districts applying to participate in the eLearning program in 2019-20 must submit the following to the EOC by June 14, 2019: • Coversheet with information that identifies the school district; • An application that identifies the assurances or requirements for participating. Please do NOT include any information that would identify your school district in this part of the application; and • Signatures of the school district superintendent and chair of the school district board of trustees, which identify the school district. Instructions: 1. Please complete the attached application in Word. All supplemental information requested should be included as an appendix which may be a pdf or other file. 2. Include the name of the district on the Coversheet and Signature pages ONLY. On all other documentation do not include the name of the district or any school in the district or the name of any district employee. The individuals, representing the initial cohort of districts, will review the applications and insist upon anonymity. 3. All applications will be reviewed to determine the readiness of the district to participate in the pilot. A rubric is attached that explains that readiness is measured against the following: a. Access of students to devices b. Teachers’ familiarity and use of a Learning Management System c. The district’s technology infrastructure d. The current status of the district’s ability to use instructional technology in the overall learning process; and e. District interest and support of participating in the pilot. 4. If you have questions about the application, please contact Melanie Barton at [email protected] or Dr. Lee D’Andrea at [email protected].
COVERSHEET Please provide the name, title and contact information for the district employee who will be responsible for implementation of eLearning:
Name: ______
Title: ______
District: ______
Email: ______
Phone Number: ______
FY2019-20 APPLICATION FORM Assurances Certification or Information Needed from District School Access The district certifies that eLearning will be implemented for all schools in the district for one or more make-up days due to inclement weather.
___YES ___NO
Instructional Section 59-1-425 of the South Carolina Code of Laws defines an eLearning Days instructional day and the requirements for make-up days. The law defines an instructional day for elementary students to be a minimum of 5.5 hours a day and for secondary students, 6.0 hours. Regulation 43- 172 stipulates that “a pupil shall maintain membership in a minimum of 200 minutes of daily instruction or its equivalency for an annual accumulation of 36,000 minutes.”
For any eLearning day used, the district certifies that each eLearning day will be 5.5 hours for students in kindergarten through grade 8 and 6.0 hours for students in grades 9-12, or a minimum of 200 minutes of daily instruction.
___YES ___NO
Will any eLearning days be used for specific built-in, make-up days like Martin Luther King Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, etc.?
___YES ___NO
If Yes, which days? ______
Number of Will the district limit the number of days of eLearning used for make-up eLearning Days days? ___Yes ___No
If Yes . . .
At a maximum, how many eLearning days could be used for make-up days? _____
How will the district decide when/if eLearning days will occur? ______Assurances Certification or Information Needed from District
How will the district notify parents and staff of implementation of an eLearning day? ______
eLearning The district certifies that the eLearning lessons will address academic Lessons content or skills that would have been addressed if school had been in session in a traditional setting.
___Yes ___No
Device The district certifies that all students in the district have access to a Distribution device or an app to complete all eLearning lessons. For Students ___Yes ___No
The district has assigned a digital device for all students in grades __ through ___ which can be taken home daily. Please identify which devices have been assigned. ______
All students in grades ___ through ___ have access to a digital device or app as documented by ______.
Please provide specific information on apps to be used to complete eLearning lessons.
Demonstrated The district certifies that all students and teachers either have access to Access to the Internet away from school buildings or have access to the Students of eLearning assignments. eLearning lesson plans ___Yes ___No
Please check all that apply below and provide any additional information on how the district will document access.
___ The district will collect information from each teacher and parent/guardian documenting that the student has access to broadband Internet access at home and can download necessary apps. Assurances Certification or Information Needed from District Demonstrated ___ The district will collect information from each teacher and Access to parent/guardian documenting what devices that teachers and students Students of use to access the Internet outside of school. eLearning lesson plans ___ The district will work with teachers and parents to access discounted Internet access at home.
___ The district will allow students to download eLearning assignments onto their devices.
___ The district will allow students to work offline in a learning management system like Google Drive or allow for offline work.
___ Other (Please specify)
Instructional Please provide evidence of the systemic use of instructional technology Technology in the classroom (instructional directions or teacher handbook, strategic plan, etc.) sample files, lessons from some classrooms including lessons in multiple content areas, etc.
Please provide at least 3 support letters from teachers and administrators.
Notification The district certifies that students and parents/guardians will be informed of their eLearning targets for any day missed by inclement weather and made up with eLearning by 9 a.m.
___Yes ___No
Teacher The district certifies that each classroom teacher of record will be Responsibility responsible for uploading eLearning assignments and will have “office hours” to answer questions or assist parents/guardians and students in completing the virtual assignments.
___Yes ___No
What are the specific responsibilities of classroom teachers? ______
Assurances Certification or Information Needed from District Student The district certifies that each student and parents/guardians have a Responsibility clear understanding of the responsibility of students to complete the eLearning assignments.
___Yes ___No
Please respond to the following questions:
How will the district communicate to students and parents? ______
How many days will the student have to complete all make-up work? __
How will incomplete work be handled? ______
Accommodations* For students with disabilities who do not use an online platform for eLearning or for whom an online platform is not appropriate, teachers will provide parents/caregivers with appropriate educational materials and * If selected, one of the first pilot cohort learning activities for student use. meetings will include staff from the SC All students who have accommodations for instruction will be provided Department of with or have access to those accommodations. Education reviewing guidance to both inform and ensure the For limited English proficient students, teachers will provide district is in parents/caregivers appropriate educational materials and learning compliance. activities for student use per the Individual Learning Plan.
___Yes ___No
Please describe how the district will handle the above accommodations. ______
District IT Support If students or parents have problems with accessing the eLearning and Infrastructure assignments, how will the district respond to questions or concerns?
______Assurances Certification or Information Needed from District
Please provide a copy of the district’s organization chart that identifies IT and instructional technology support at the district and/or school level. Do NOT include the names of individuals; only include their titles and denote whether they are full or part-time employees.
Please provide evidence, including a narrative, of the IT and instructional technology support services provided at the district and school.
Learning The district has a learning management system that will post the Management assignments for eLearning day and will document that student System assignments are collected and completed.
___Yes ___No
Please identify the learning management system or systems to be used. ______
Please denote grade levels served: ______
How long (years) has the district used this learning management system? ____
In which school year was this learning management system first fully implemented? ______
Other Support Is the district interested in reviewing and using eLearning resources provided by Discus through the South Carolina State Library and/or SC ETV?
___Yes ___No
Reporting The district agrees to work with the Education Oversight Committee (EOC), its staff, and at least one school district that participated in the pilot program in the prior year to monitor and document the implementation and impact of eLearning for school make-up days. The reporting will include but is not limited to: methods of implementation utilized; advantages and disadvantages; barriers and opportunities; and feedback from administrators, teachers, students, and parents/ guardians. The EOC will not assess the impact on student achievement.
___Yes ___No
SIGNATURE PAGE
By signing below, ______(District name) certifies that it meets the above requirements to participate in the eLearning pilot for school make-up days and that it will provide the necessary data and cooperation to the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to monitor and evaluate implementation of the eLearning pilot for school make-up days.
Superintendent: ______Signature of Superintendent: ______Date: ______Chair of Board of Trustees: ______Signature of Board Chair: ______
Date: ______
* The support of the full Board is best to implement the eLearning project. If the application was approved by the Board, please include a copy of the Agenda and/or Minutes.
eLearning Pilot Two 2019-2020 Application Rubric and Scoring
Based on year one research, observations and feedback from pilot districts, the following rubric serves as the scoring basis for the selection of year two pilot districts. The application completed and submitted by the district, along with the assurances signed by the superintendent and board chair, serve as the document scored by the rubric.
Readiness to Implement Zero Points 1-4 Point 5-8 Points 9-10 Points District Score Device The district does not have a The district has a device The district has a device distribution The district has a device distribution distribution device distribution plan distribution written plan including written plan including financing, 7-9 written plan including financing, at least among students implemented financing, less than seven grade grade levels have been 9 grade levels have been implemented. levels have been implemented. implemented. Range of points allows Range of points allows to consider time Range of points allows to to consider time in implementation. in implementation. consider time in implementation. Teachers’ The district does not have a K- The district has systemic The district has robust Learning The district has robust Learning familiarity and 12 Learning Management Learning Management System(s) Management System(s) (LMS) that Management System(s) (LMS) that will use of a Learning System (LMS) and the application will aide in the implementation of aide in the implementation of eLearning Management describes how it is used. Range eLearning and the application and the application includes evidence System. of points allows to consider time includes evidence (screen shots, (screen shots, files, etc.) how it is used. in implementation. files, etc.) how it is used. Range of The application includes letters of points allows to consider time in support from teachers and implementation. administration. Range of points allows to consider time in implementation. Technology The district’s organization chart The district’s organization chart The district’s organization chart The district’s organization chart shows infrastructure. shows no IT or instructional shows some IT or instructional shows IT and instructional IT and instructional technology support technology support at the technology support at the district technology support at the district or at the district and school level. Titles district or school level. or school level. Titles may vary; school level. Titles may vary; may vary; responsibilities must be responsibilities must be clearly responsibilities must be clearly clearly articulated. articulated. articulated. Current status of There is no evidence of Evidence is included for systemic Evidence is included for systemic Evidence is included for systemic use of instructional instructional technology as a use of instructional technology in use of instructional technology in the instructional technology in the classroom technology as a part of the overall learning the classroom (instructional classroom (instructional directions or (instructional directions or teacher part of the overall process. directions or teacher handbook, teacher handbook, strategic plan, handbook, strategic plan, etc.). Sample learning process. strategic plan, etc.). Sample files, etc.). Sample files, lessons from files, lessons from some classrooms are lessons from some classrooms some classrooms are included 6-8 included 6-8 grades in multiple content are included less than five grades. areas and include support letters from grades. teachers and administration. Sub-total Readiness
Assurances Zero Points 4 Point 7 Points 10 Points District Score The The district application does The district application does not The district application has both the The district application has both the superintendent not have any signatures. have one of the signatures. superintendent’s and the board superintendent’s and the board chair’s and the board chair’s signatures. signatures. The board voted to approve chair signatures and support the application (minutes are included in included). the application. Sub-total Assurances Total Score (combination of Readiness and Assurances)
eLearning Pilot Districts Project Final Report to the Education Oversight Committee May 7, 2019
Prepared by Lee M. D’Andrea, Ph.D.
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background ...... page 4
Implementation Process ...... page 5
Final Findings ...... page 5
Recommendations for Year Two eLearning ...... page 9
Final Conclusions ...... page 9
Appendix ...... page 10 • Proviso 1A.86 of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act • eLearning Application • Fall Meeting Agendas (September, October, November, December) • Late Winter Meeting Agenda (March) • Sample Report to the local Board of Trustees (Spartanburg 7) • Feedback Results from Districts (Anderson 5, Kershaw, Spartanburg 1 and Pickens) • Sample Website Communication https://www.kcsdschools.net/elearning
3
Introduction and Background Pursuant to Proviso 1A.86 of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act, the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) constructed and implemented a pilot program for alternative methods of instruction for make-up days. On August 6, 2018 the EOC selected five (5) school districts around the state (Anderson 5, Kershaw, Pickens, Spartanburg 1 and Spartanburg 7) for a pilot program to utilize alternative methods of instruction which may include, but are not limited to, online or virtual instruction for scheduled make up time. This preliminary report articulates information regarding the project implementation and results through December 31, 2018.
The selection process included an application which required the districts define the readiness of the district to implement an eLearning day in lieu of face-to-face school day. The readiness factors were based on device distribution among students, teachers’ familiarity and use of a learning management system, technology infrastructure and current status of instructional technology as a part of the overall learning process.
The EOC contracted with Dr. Lee M. D’Andrea to structure the pilot project, to assist districts in implementation, and to establish a working network among the districts and South Carolina ETV (SCETV) and the SC State Library as required by the proviso. The following documents the implementation, findings, and conclusions from the first year of the pilot program.
4
Implementation Process Upon notification of award to serve as a pilot district, monthly meetings were scheduled between September and December and a final meeting in March of 2019. The topics for the meetings included:
1. district sharing of current instructional technology implementation status and device distribution implementation plans; 2. learning about additional resources at SCETV and SC State Library; 3. delivery of eLearning in compliance with IEPs and 504s; 4. communication strategies (with board members, parents, students, teachers and staff); 5. findings from the Mock or Practice days each district scheduled; 6. absence rates; and 7. collection of recommendations for future pilot districts.
Final Findings During the networking meetings, districts described the extensive instructional technology landscape they had created as a part of the overall teaching and learning environment in the district. The readiness to implement predicated the ability to offer the e-learning day to students and families as a strategy for continuing instruction without interruption. In each of the five pilot districts, instructional technology integration and 1:1 devices had been in existence for at least two years. The districts reported this amount of time was necessary to fully implement an effective learning management system, secure devices and establish practices for use both in school and at home. In addition, professional development was ongoing during the entire implementation process. Helping and supporting teachers on topics such as learning management use, instructional strategies and location of resources were scheduled in face-to-face meetings, summer seminars and webinars. Both the SC State Library and SCETV provided help to teachers in one or more of these deliveries.
The mock or practice days were positive learning experiences for the districts. Each district reported “small, but important details” related to communications with parents,
5
student downloading assignments, software interfacing and log-ons, and a few teachers still lacking skill or commitment to implement technology in the learning environment. All districts reported the Mock or Practice days as an integral part of the process. But all five districts reiterated the desire for eLearning as an alternative to canceling school is really because the eLearning is an operational part of their learning environments and this opportunity truthfully lessens interruptions in instruction. In fact, the districts reported the laser focus on being prepared for either Mock/Practice days as well as actual eLearning days strengthened the overall teaching and learning plans in their districts. This could only happen with a strong instructional technology foundation and high level of readiness in all stakeholders, including students with devices, teachers working in this instructional technology environment and administrators communicating clearly both internally and externally.
Actual eLearning days were used by four of the five districts during the fall and winter. The reasons included flooding and rain associated with Hurricane Michael and snow and ice the week of December 10, 2018. Included in eLearning days used are two scheduled make-up days.
District Day 1 Day 2 Anderson Five October 11 December 10 Kershaw January 7 (make-up) Pickens December 10 December 11 Spartanburg 1 Spartanburg 7 December 10 December 11
When the pilot districts reviewed the data on average daily membership, eLearning days were not abnormally different at the elementary school level. Two findings were noted at the middle and high school level. (1) When the attendance was dependent on work being turned in on time, more students get counted absent. This is not the case in physical attendance recording. The student is literally in the seat and his/her presence is recorded; the work done is a separate documentation in the grade book; and (2) the districts
6 determined, in an effort to ensure the learning was meaningful, the amount of work assigned by teachers in many cases took a lot longer to complete. The districts, as a part of their own reflection, are reviewing the attendance and graded work issue and will make need local revisions.
The overwhelming feedback was positive, and the best evidence is in the qualitative stories, either posted on social media sites or reported by local news outlets. In all pilots, information is also gathered to improve or correct the initiative. The constructive criticism from parents and teachers were used to make subsequent days better. The two most frequent improvement feedback to parents having to stay home from work (when work was not also closed) and time to complete lessons being too short or too long. Samples of these are in the links and/or websites below:
Spartanburg 7 https://www.goupstate.com/news/20181210/e-learning-keeps-district-7-students-busy-on-snow- day https://www.wyff4.com/article/upstate-school-district-uses-virtual-learning-during-winter- storm/25487369 https://www.facebook.com/SchoolDistrict7/ (see posting on December 10)
Pickens https://upstatetoday.com/2018/12/online-learning-an-answer-for-snow-days/
Anderson 5
https://www.wspa.com/news/anderson-5-holds-first-ever-e-learning-day-in-state/1520130625
Kershaw http://www.chronicle-independent.com/archives/52043/
7
Finally, eLearning days used were successful because of the significant amount of instructional technology existing in the districts, laser focus on preparation for continuing this learning environment without being in a traditional classroom, the resources, activities and lessons extended the existing lesson plans (and not arbitrary busy work) and the support and help that was available during the day (via phone, social media, text or email).
The districts that used eLearning days in the fall and winter were asked to survey the teachers, the administrators the students and the parents using one question: Was the eLearning day a positive learning experience for you? The parents, teachers and administrators’ results were overwhelmingly positive. Each district reported over ninety percent (90%) Yes in these three groups. The students reported a 65-75% positive response; however, the comments revealed that the students missed being with their friends and wanted a day off.
The pilot districts fully expected to use more eLearning days in January and February as these two months presented the most snow and ice challenges for school attendance. However, there were no additional days used for eLearning.
8
Recommendations for Year Two eLearning
When asked if the districts would like for the opportunity to extend into 2019-2020, the resounding response was “Yes!” The pilot districts are so positive about the experience, they encourage a Year Two Pilot Cohort. The pilot districts worked, collaborated and shared: forms, communication strategies, how some issues were resolved and even readiness checklists. While different Learning Management Systems were used and different devices, the central focus of all the districts is quality, student-focused instruction. This common mission served as a strong bond for networking.
The five districts offered to read the second cohort applications (with identifying information redacted), score their readiness and applications. Once Cohort Two is chosen, the process for planning and implementing could be repeated, this time with the help and support of Cohort One.
Final Conclusions The General Assembly has supported pilot projects for decades. This reporter was professionally involved in implementing a Target 2000 grant in the early nineties. Pilot projects are, by design, an opportunity to innovative or solve a problem differently. And when the final findings are positive, as is the case in this pilot project Year One, there may be a proclivity to move to scale too quickly. Clearly, these five districts had foundations in place on which to build this Pilot Project. Minus this level of readiness, the results may be very different and can be disastrous for everyone: students, policymakers, teachers, and communities. The General Assembly is strongly encouraged to continue the pilot project for at least one more year and perhaps two with a goal of having 25 to 33 percent of the districts engaged in what would be three cohorts.
9
Appendix
1A.86. of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act
1A.86. (SDE-EIA: Digital Learning Plan) From funds administered by the K-12 Technology Committee, the following study committee is created to develop a Digital Learning Plan for the state’s K-12 public education system. The goal of the Digital Learning Plan is to build upon the existing technology foundation of public schools and develop a coherent long-term strategy that sets directions and priorities, supports innovation, and provides resources to enable educators and students to benefit fully from digital-age teaching and learning. The Digital Learning Plan must provide recommendations for State actions that will guide and support K-12 schools in their transitions to digital-age education. The plan must be submitted to the General Assembly by January 1, 2019 and must address, at a minimum, the following issues for districts and schools: technology, infrastructure, and devices; human capacity; content instruction and assessment; security; regional and state support; policy and funding; local digital learning initiatives; and the use of alternative methods of instruction for scheduled make up time. The Digital Learning Plan must include timelines for implementation and cost projections beginning with the subsequent fiscal year. The study committee shall confer with other states and national experts on developing and implementing the Digital Learning Plan. Staff support shall be provided by the K-12 Technology Committee and agencies represented on the committee. The study committee shall be composed of the following members: 1. Executive Director of the Department of Administration, or his designee, who shall chair the study committee; 2. State Superintendent of Education, or his designee; 3. President of Educational Television Commission, or his designee; 4. Director of the State Library, or his designee; 5. Executive Director of the Education Oversight Committee, or his designee; 6. A representative of the private sector in the field of information technology appointed by the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; 7. A representative of the private sector in the field of information technology appointed by the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; 8. One representative of an educator preparation program appointed by the State Board of Education; 9. One member of a local board of education who represents a local education agency that has successfully incorporated technology into its schools, who is appointed by the Education Oversight Committee; 10. One member of a local board of education who represents a local education agency that has limited access to technology, who is appointed by the Education Oversight Committee; and 11. One parent of a public school child appointed by the Education Oversight Committee.
10
The Education Oversight Committee shall be responsible for and have control over the construct and implementation of the pilot program for alternative methods of instruction for make-up days. For the current fiscal year, the Education Oversight Committee shall select school districts around the state for a pilot program to utilize alternative methods of instruction which may include, but are not limited to, online or virtual instruction for scheduled make up time. All make up time must reflect the number of hours of the make-up days the instruction will cover. All make up time must meet state requirements for elementary and secondary school days. The Education Oversight Committee shall provide guidelines to the selected school districts no later than August 1, 2018. All districts shall continue to report to the Department of Education all days missed, reasons for the absences, days made up, and now the alternative method of instruction used. The Education Oversight Committee shall work with the Educational Television Commission (ETV) and the State Library to utilize and coordinate available ETV and State Library resources and explore alternative means of delivery to districts that may lack proper access to online instruction. The school districts shall report the following information to the Education Oversight Committee by April 1, 2019: method(s) of implementation utilized, advantages and disadvantages of the method(s) used, and any feedback received from parents or guardians. The Education Oversight shall report those findings to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee by June 1, 2019.
11
eLearning Application
Requirements for District Participation in eLearning Pilot The superintendent of the school district and the chair of the board of trustees of the school district must certify to the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) that the district: 1. Meets the following minimum requirements to participate in the eLearning pilot to use eLearning to make up days missed due to inclement weather; 2. Agrees to provide data to the EOC or independent consultants hired by the EOC to evaluate implementation of the pilot. The data elements will be mutually agreed upon by the EOC and the pilot school districts; however, all data elements will be consistent across districts participating in the pilot; and 3. Agrees to facilitate the collection of online surveys as requested by the EOC to identify the successes and challenges of the pilot from the perspective of administrators, classroom teachers, students, and parents.
Approval of Districts for Participation in Pilot The following are recommendations proposed by the Academic Standards and Assessments Subcommittee to the EOC staff for determining which districts participate in the pilot: 1. Only school districts that submit documentation certifying their ability to meet the following minimum requirements for participation will be considered for participation in the pilot. 2. No more than five districts will be approved for participation in the pilot in school year 2018-19 with districts that successfully complete the application process approved in the order received. The Subcommittee recommends that Anderson 5 be one of the five districts selected. 3. To the extent possible, the districts selected for the pilot will represent various sizes and geographic locations as well as alternative methods of instruction. 4. Pending final approval of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act, the EOC will begin approval of districts for participation in the pilot beginning at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
12
Requirements Certification or Information Needed from District All Schools The district certifies that eLearning will be implemented for all schools in the district for one or more make-up days due to inclement weather.
___YES ___NO
Instructional Section 59-1-425 of the South Carolina Code of Laws defines an eLearning Days instructional day and the requirements for make-up days. The law defines an instructional day for elementary students to be a minimum of 5.5 hours a day and for secondary students, 6.0 hours. Regulation 43-172 stipulates that “a pupil shall maintain membership in a minimum of 200 minutes of daily instruction or its equivalency for an annual accumulation of 36,000 minutes.”
For any eLearning day used, the district certifies that each eLearning day will be 5.5 hours for students in kindergarten through grade 8 and 6.0 hours for students in grades 9-12, or a minimum of 200 minutes of daily instruction.
___YES ___NO
Will any eLearning days be used for specific built-in, make-up days like Martin Luther King Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, etc.?
___YES ___NO
If Yes, which days? ______
Number of Will the district limit the number of days of eLearning used for make-up eLearning Days days? ___Yes ___No
If Yes . . .
At a maximum, how many eLearning days could be used for make-up days? _____
How will the district decide when/if eLearning days will occur? ______
13
Requirements Certification or Information Needed from District Number of How will the district notify parents and staff of implementation of an eLearning Days eLearning day? ______
eLearning The district certifies that the eLearning lessons will address academic Lessons content or skills that would have been addressed if school had been in session in a traditional setting.
___Yes ___No
Access The district certifies that all students in the district have access to a device or an app to complete all eLearning lessons.
___Yes ___No
The district has assigned a digital device for all students in grades __ through ___ which can be taken home daily. Please identify which devices have been assigned. ______
All students in grades ___ through ___ have access to a digital device or app as documented by ______.
Please provide specific information on apps to be used to complete eLearning lessons.
Demonstrated The district certifies that all students and teachers either have access to Access to the Internet away from school buildings or have access to the eLearning Students of assignments. eLearning lesson plans ___Yes ___No
Please check all that apply below and provide any additional information on how the district will document access.
___ The district will collect information from each teacher and parent/guardian documenting that the student has access to broadband Internet access at home and can download necessary apps.
14
Requirements Certification or Information Needed from District Demonstrated ___ The district will collect information from each teacher and Access to parent/guardian documenting what devices that teachers and students Students of use to access the Internet outside of school. eLearning lesson plans ___ The district will work with teachers and parents to access discounted Internet access at home.
___ The district will allow students to download eLearning assignments onto their devices.
___ The district will allow students to work offline in a learning management system like Google Drive or allow for offline work.
___ Other (Please specify)
Notification The district certifies that students and parents/guardians will be informed of their eLearning targets for any day missed by inclement weather and made up with eLearning by 9 a.m.
___Yes ___No
Teacher The district certifies that each classroom teacher of record will be Responsibility responsible for uploading eLearning assignments and will have “office hours” to answer questions or assist parents/guardians and students in completing the virtual assignments.
___Yes ___No
Please provide information on the specific responsibilities of classroom teachers.
Student The district certifies that each student and parents/guardians have a clear Responsibility understanding of the responsibility of students to complete the eLearning assignments.
___Yes ___No
15
Requirements Certification or Information Needed from District Student Please respond to the following questions: Responsibility How will the district communicate to students and parents? ______
How many days will the student have to complete all make-up work? __
How will incomplete work be handled? ______
Accommodations For students with disabilities who do not use an online platform for eLearning or for whom an online platform is not appropriate, teachers will provide parents/caregivers with appropriate educational materials and learning activities for student use.
All students who have accommodations for instruction will be provided with or have access to those accommodations.
For limited English proficient students, teachers will provide parents/caregivers appropriate educational materials and learning activities for student use per the Individual Learning Plan.
___Yes ___No
Please describe how the district will handle the above accommodations. ______
Technical If students or parents have problems with accessing the eLearning Support assignments, how will the district respond to questions or concerns?
______
Learning The district has a learning management system that will post the Management assignments for eLearning day and will document that student System assignments are collected and completed.
___Yes ___No
16
Requirements Certification or Information Needed from District Learning Please identify the learning management system or systems to be used. Management System Please denote grade levels served: ______
Other Support Is the district interested in reviewing and using eLearning resources provided by Discus through the South Carolina State Library and/or SC ETV?
___Yes ___No
Reporting The district agrees to work with the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) and its staff to monitor and document the implementation and impact of eLearning for school make-up days. The reporting will include, but is not limited to: methods of implementation utilized; advantages and disadvantages; barriers and opportunities; and feedback from administrators, teachers, students, and parents/ guardians. The EOC will not assess the impact on student achievement.
___Yes ___No
Key Contact Please provide the name, title and contact information for the district employee who will be responsible for implementation of eLearning:
Name: ______
Title: ______
Email: ______
Phone Number: ______
17
By signing below, ______(District name) certifies that it meets the above requirements to participate in the eLearning pilot for school make-up days and that it will provide the necessary data and cooperation to the Education
Oversight Committee (EOC) to monitor and evaluate implementation of the eLearning pilot for school make-up days.
Superintendent: ______Signature of Superintendent: ______Date: ______Chair of Board of Trustees ______Signature of Board Chair: ______Date: ______
18
Agenda of Meetings
19
SC Pilot Program – elearning Pilot Districts (5) Meeting September 27, 2018
Host: Anderson School District 5 - Administrative Office
Agenda
10:00 am Welcome and Introductions • Share for 5 minutes about your district plan
10:30 am Review of Proviso 1A.86, expectations and general reporting (handouts) – discuss infrastructure, data collection and design • State time requirements (Update on meeting with Darlene Prevatt) • Days missed notice to SDE • Information to Melanie Barton and Lee D’Andrea (for reporting and answering questions) • Description of Reports for EOC and General Assembly
11: 00 am Overview of another state’s solution – Dr. Shane Robbins, Superintendent Kershaw (a pilot district)
11:30 am State Library resources overview
12:00 am Determine meeting dates: October 22 - Kershaw - resources and communications November XX - Pickens - professional development and trials December XX - Spartanburg 1 - challenges seen and unseen; documentation January - progress reporting and status updates January 15 – My status report to EOC and General Assembly February - progress reporting and status updates March XX - Spartanburg 7 – review final report to the General Assembly
12:20 pm Questions, suggestions, ideas
12:30 pm Adjourn
20
SC Pilot Program – eLearning Pilot Districts (5) Meeting October 22, 2018
Host: Kershaw County - Administrative Office
Agenda
10:00 am Welcome and Introductions and Announcements
10:15 am Update from Anderson 5 on eLearning Day • What worked • What would you do differently
10:30 am SC ETV Resources Overview
11: 00 am Special Education and eLearning – guidance from SDE
11:45 am Practice Dates and Communications
12:10 pm Needed Information for Legislature
12:25 pm Questions, suggestions, ideas
12:30 pm Adjourn
Next meeting dates: November 16 - Pickens - professional development and trials December 14 - Spartanburg 1 - challenges seen and unseen; documentation January - progress reporting and status updates January 15 – My status report to EOC and General Assembly February - progress reporting and status updates March 21 - Spartanburg 7 – review final report to the General Assembly
21
SC Pilot Program – eLearning Pilot Districts (5) Meeting November 16, 2018
Host: SDPC - Administrative Office – Technology Building 1348 Griffin Mill Road, Easily SC
Agenda
10:00 am Welcome and Introductions and Announcements
10:15 am Update from Districts on Mock/Practice Days • What worked • What would you do differently • Specifically: professional development • Specifically: communications
10:45 am Overview of SDPC Network Plans and Implementation
11:10 am Review Outline of Report Due in January • Early Grades Provisions • Survey to Pilot Districts • District Websites and Other Internal Resources • Recommendations for 2019-2020
11:50 am Update from EOC and General Assembly
12:10 pm Questions, suggestions, ideas
12:30 pm Adjourn
Next meeting dates: December 14 - Spartanburg 1 - challenges seen and unseen; documentation January - progress reporting and status updates January 15 – My status report to EOC and General Assembly February - progress reporting and status updates March 21 - Spartanburg 7 – review final report to the General Assembly
22
SC Pilot Program – eLearning Pilot Districts (5) Meeting December 14, 2018
Host: Spartanburg One Administrative Office, 121 Wheeler St, Campobello, SC 29322
Agenda
10:00 am Welcome and Introductions and Announcements
10:15 am Update from Districts on eLearning Days • What worked • What would you do differently • Communications strategies, successes and challenges • Any survey results o As a teacher, the eLearning day provides a positive instructional opportunity for students. yes or no o As a student, the eLearning day provides a good instructional opportunity for me to continue learning and working. yes or no o As a parent, the eLearning day provides instructional lessons/activities for my child. yes or no o As an administrator, the eLearning day provides consistent opportunities for student learning and work. yes or no • Unknown or unexpected issues
11:15 am Review documentation for Early Childhood grades (without 1:1 devices)
11:30 am Review Outline of Report Due in January (gather some data) • Survey to Pilot Districts • District Websites Links and Other Internal Resources • Recommendations for 2019-2020
11:50 am Update from EOC and General Assembly (in person or via phone)
12:10 pm Questions, suggestions, ideas;
12:30 pm Adjourn
Next meeting dates: January 15 – My status report to EOC and General Assembly February - progress reporting and status updates March 21 - Spartanburg 7 – review final report to the General Assembly
23
SC Pilot Program – eLearning Pilot Districts (5) Meeting March 21, 2019
Host: Spartanburg Seven Administrative Office, 610 Dupre Dr., Spartanburg, SC 29307 Agenda
10:00 am Welcome and Introductions and Announcements
10:15 am Update from Districts on eLearning Days • What will you do differently next year (assuming the Proviso passes and signed) • Communications strategies for Year 2 • New resources discovered • Absence rates on eLearning dates • Device distribution for 2019-2020
11:15 am Tentative Application, Process and Rubric • Overall timeline • Meeting dates for Cohort 2
12:15 am Other questions, suggestions, ideas
12:30 pm Adjourn
24
SC Pilot Program – eLearning Anderson School District Five 2018-2019
Survey
Foundation for Implementation
1. Describe the device distribution the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for this distribution. Anderson School District Five is one to one with Chromebooks in grades K through 12. We also have 5 devices per 4K class. Below is a historical and future timeline for our 1:1 program. ● October 2018: K-2nd devices refreshed. ● August 2018: 6th-12th Devices Refreshed. ● January 2018: New devices for 3rd - 5th, Older Devices pushed down to 1st and 2nd. ● September 2015: All 5th Devices to be Distributed using the Classroom Model ● August 2015: All 6th - 8th Devices to be Distributed for Take-Home Use ● August 2015: All 9th-12th Devices to again be Distributed for Take-Home Use ● Summer 2015: Network and Wireless Upgrades at Elementary and Middle Schools ● January/February 2015: TL Hanna and Westside 10th-12th Devices Distributed for Take-Home Use ● October 2014: All 9th Devices Distributed ● Summer 2014: Network and Wireless Upgrades at High Schools ● December 2013: 6th - 8th Devices Distributed Robert Anderson Project ● December 2012: Devices Piloted for Robert Anderson Project 2. Describe the Learning Management System the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for using this system. We are a GSuite District and use Google Classroom as our Learning Management System in grades K through 12. We have been a GSuite District since December of 2013. We required teachers to use Google Classroom as their LMS in 2017. 3. Describe the instructional technology expectations and implementations in the district before applying for the Pilot project. Please include professional development strategies. Six years ago, we started preparing our teachers for a one to one Chromebook environment. We purchased SimpleK12 and required all of our teachers to get 5 hours of SimpleK12 credit. SimpleK12’s mission is to help educators inspire their students, engage their learners, perfect their craft, and share their experiences to help others do the same. Online professional development. Anytime. Anywhere… even at home in your pajamas! This tool gave our teachers the ability to self select PD to suit their needs. It also gave our schools the ability to push out PD to their teachers that met their goals. We also hosted several Google Summit’s for all of our teachers. These Summits included international educators as presenters. These
25
presenters shared how they used GSuite Apps in the classroom to increase engagement and academic achievement. We also realized that we needed to take a “team” approach to training, coaching, and modeling with all of our teachers. We have a team of 10 outstanding educators that serve as Digital Integration Specialists for our district. We also have a support person (ITSA) in each school that handles any hardware/software issues. They work out of the Information Technology Services Department. Having all of these supports in place in Anderson School District Five allowed us to be confident in our application to be a pilot district for eLearning Days.
Pre-Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the communication strategies used prior to implementation. Please strategies to for Board Members, teachers, students, parents and community. If you have a district webpage for eLearning, please include the link here. Our eLearning Site can be accessed here. https://sites.google.com/anderson5.net/elearningday. Mr. Wilson, our superintendent, sent out several communications via email to introduce the eLearning Day pilot. We presented the pilot at a School Board Meeting, Principals’ Meetings, Parent Nights across the district, and sent out Parent communications/flyers about our pilot. We also had several news stories on the pilot. A few are listed below: ● CBS News ● South Carolina's first eLearning day: How it went for Anderson School District 5 ● Anderson School District Five, first in South Carolina for E-learning make- up day pilot ● Anderson 5 to launch virtual school day pilot program ● Anderson 5 holds first ever E-Learning day in state ● Washington Post Article ● Good Morning America ● Newsweek Article ● Yahoo Finance ● The Weather Channel Social media was used to keep everyone up to date with the pilot. Our hashtag is #a5eLearning. 2. Mock or trial days. I have notes and links you have shared. If you’d like to include other notes or links, please describe here. We had an early eLearning Day on October 11 due to Hurricane Michael. We used that day as our first trial day for eLearning.
26
Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the impact on instruction and learning when using eLearning days instead of school days canceled. eLearning allows us to continue with instruction and keep kids engaged in the learning process. It gives us the opportunity to stay on track with the courses and curriculum we need to cover. Many of our schools have stated that they had better participation on the eLearning day than they did on any make up day we had last school year. I also believe having eLearning days will push our teachers to utilize the technology in more engaging and collaborative ways. eLearning days are preparing our students for how they will work in college and in the workplace.
2. Feedback from teachers, students, parents and administrators. Please use the 4 questions and share the results with me.
27
28
3. Describe 1-3 strategies your district would change (do differently) before or during implementation. 1. I would created example Choice Boards for teachers (K-12) to use as a template for their eLearning Lessons. These Choice Boards would include estimated times for completion of each task. I think this would help us with the issue of giving too much work to students on an eLearning Day. 2. I would have an eLearning Day Parent Night at each school location. We would have the students involved in showing their parents the types of activities they are doing on the Chromebook. We would also explain the eLearning Day pilot and requirements. 3. I would get students involved in creating a Public Service Announcement to the district and community concerning eLearning Days. I think having the students talk about their experience will help us communicate more effectively to our student body, staff, and community.
29
SC Pilot Program – eLearning Kershaw County School District 2018-2019
Survey
Foundation for Implementation
1. Describe the device distribution the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for this distribution. a. KCSD was a fully implemented 1:1 district in Middle School (6-8) and High School (9-12 prior to becoming a pilot school district. Devices were distributed to students on the first day of school. In Elementary (K-5) devices were comprised of classroom carts. Once awarded the opportunity to become a pilot district, we evaluated our inventory and ordered devices to allow each child in grades K-5 to be fully embedded as 1:1 as well. The final distribution of devices did not occur at the elementary level until mid-October due to a delay from the vendor/manufacturer.
2. Describe the Learning Management System the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for using this system. a. The district was already utilizing Google and the Google Classroom components prior to becoming a pilot district. However, in the lower grades we placed more emphasis on training as utilizing Google Classroom had previously been optional.
3. Describe the instructional technology expectations and implementations in the district before applying for the Pilot project. Please include professional development strategies. a. This is my first year as the Superintendent at KCSD. Prior to arriving I reviewed the district policies. It varied based on the grade level. For example, the elementary level expectations were to utilize supplementary software such as “Imagine Learning” but it was left up to the discretion of the teacher. At the middle school level it was much of the same. At the high school level, where the district was one of the first, if not the first, one to one community, it was a part of the daily expectation as staff utilized Google Classroom and had moved away from traditional textbooks. b. Professional Development occurred at the building level based on individual teacher need and request.
30
Pre-Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the communication strategies used prior to implementation. Please strategies for Board Members, teachers, students, parents and community. If you have a district webpage for eLearning, please include the link here. a. We attempted a “phased” communication approach. We began with our School Board. This led to meetings with our teaching and support staff. There were numerous articles in our local community newspaper(s). We also utilized our “OneCallNow” system to send group recorded phone calls, emails, and text messages to our patrons. b. Much of our communication directed patrons to our webpage where we had created multiple links to explain the program as well as a tab for frequently asked questions and answers: webpage url- https://www.kcsdschools.net/domain/3002
2. Mock or trial days. I have notes and links you have shared. If you’d like to include other notes or links, please describe here. a. September 6th, Chronicle Independent- http://www.chronicle- independent.com/archives/51212/ b. October 18th, Chronicle Independent: http://www.chronicle- independent.com/archives/51783/ c. November 20th, WLTX Channel 19: https://www.wltx.com/video/news/local/kershaw-county-schools-begin-e- learning/101-8339315 d. November 26th, Chronicle Independent- http://www.chronicle- independent.com/archives/51535/
Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the impact on instruction and learning when using eLearning days instead of school days canceled. a. We have only utilized “1” eLearning Day to date. Overwhelmingly the feedback has been positive and teachers feel as if they have not lost a day. I have been adamant that we do not “pre-plan” eLearning lessons, rather there must be continuity of instruction. This has and will allow us to maintain the integrity of our instructional program and stay on track with our pacing guides.
2. Feedback from teachers, students, parents and administrators. Please use the 4 questions and share the results with me. a. Teacher feedback- They have found some students were actually more engaged than they normally were when physically present. b. Parent feedback- overwhelmingly positive. However, for those students who spend a cancelled school day at a daycare it posed a challenge. For part of our
31
district in the northern part of Kershaw County connectivity was an issue. However, we pre-positioned over 30 school buses in that part of the county to serve as wifi hotspots. c. Student feedback- not one negative comment on our survey. They would like to see us utilize this concept more often if possible. We have discussed how utilizing eLearning during parent teacher conferences in lieu of a ½ student day would be much more productive. d. Administrator feedback- even those administrators who aren’t tech savvy appreciated seeing the flexibility for our staff and students as well as the positive feedback from our own internal surveys.
3. Describe 1-3 strategies your district would change (do differently) before or during implementation. Our district has hired a Director of Instructional Technology and eLearning. Having this person in place allows us to have a coordinated approach to professional development. This would have been useful prior to implementation.
Being a part of the pilot program has allowed our district to advance in areas we were failing to adequately provide for our students. We are spending time on professional development; training our teachers on how to “blend instruction” and flip classrooms. We are able to create more formative data, therefore we are spending time on how to effectively use this data. We have hired a person that not only focuses on eLearning in our district rather virtual instruction whether it be for remediating or accelerating our students. As I evaluate our data I believe this process has been an inspiration for growth in our district.
32
SC Pilot Program – eLearning School District of Pickens County 2018-2019
Survey
Foundation for Implementation
1. Describe the device distribution the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for this distribution.
SDPC first implemented a 1:1 program in 2015. We call this program Tech It Home. We started with 9th graders, then added middle and high in 2016, and 4th and 5th in 2017. All students in grades 4 through 12 now have a Chromebook and take them home.
2. Describe the Learning Management System the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for using this system.
SDPC has three key platforms for our digital ecosystem that we call our Digital Top Stops. The first is ClassLink for our single sign-on platform, the second is Schoology for our LMS, and the third is Safari Montage for our learning object repository. All platforms are fully interoperable. Additionally, the SDPC technology department rosters the majority of digital web applications for teachers. These are available through at least one of our Digital Top Stops, if not all three. We are in our fourth year of implementation of all three systems.
3. Describe the instructional technology expectations and implementations in the district before applying for the Pilot project. Please include professional development strategies.
In 2013, SDPC implemented a district-wide BYOD program. We trained all teachers in managing BYOD. As we migrated from BYOD to Tech It Home, we added additional PD requirements to train teachers in using Schoology, ClassLink, Safari Montage, digital textbooks, web applications, and LanSchool. We also collaborated with Modern Teacher to train teachers and administrators in best practices for creating digital lessons for personalized and customized instruction. All teachers in grades 3-12 are required to use Schoology for posting digital lessons. As we have moved further into the implementation of digital curriculum, we see teachers effectively using our LMS, including teachers training and supporting each other in best practices. Delivering instruction with our digital ecosystem is now common practice.
33
Pre-Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the communication strategies used prior to implementation. Please strategies to for Board Members, teachers, students, parents and community. If you have a district webpage for eLearning, please include the link here.
Before we applied to become a pilot district, the superintendent and senior leadership staff presented information to board members over multiple months. As we worked through the pilot application, we kept board members, administrators, and teachers in the loop. Once SC DOE accepted us into the pilot, we communicated with parents and students through press releases, social media, and school newsletters. We created a district webpage for our program, which we call Digital Learning Days. SDPC Digital Learning Days WYFF Story August Fox Story August Greenville Story August We developed an online professional development course to educate teachers on the particulars of our Digital Learning Day policy and procedures. Teachers received PD and technology credits for participating.
2. Mock or trial days. I have notes and links you have shared. If you’d like to include other notes or links, please describe here.
We required all schools and teachers to conduct one mock day prior to using a Digital Learning Day. We practiced finding assignments and downloading them, and practiced finding and accessing assignments on Chromebooks without Internet access.
Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the impact on instruction and learning when using eLearning days instead of school days canceled.
We used two Digital Learning Days back to back. We did not note any serious disruption to learning in grades 4 through 12 from feedback in the surveys and social media. However, not all early childhood teachers had explained and/or prepared work for students for two back-to-back days. Some students had to make-up this day’s work after returning to school.
2. Feedback from teachers, students, parents and administrators. Please use the 4 questions and share the results with me.
Digital Learning Days provide instructional lessons/activities for my child. YES a. Parents: 91.25% b. Students: K-3rd Grade 90%; 4th -5th Grade 94%; 6th -12th Grade 71% c. Teachers: 94% d. Administrator: 93%
34
3. Describe 1-3 strategies your district would change (do differently) before or during implementation.
a. We would make sure early childhood teachers communicate plans in the event we are out more than one day. The packets sent home had enough activities for multiple days, and we should’ve communicated how to use those activities on additional day. b. Ensure that teachers do not require that information be printed in order to be completed. c. We would make sure teachers who gave too much work knew to give a more appropriate amount of work. Our biggest complaint was teachers who gave too much work. This accounted for 15% according to parent feedback. We need to have consistent procedures that all administrators follow for Digital Learning Days. i. Elementary Level Guidelines – not more than 30 minutes per core subject area and 10 minutes of related arts for a total of 130 minutes per day. ii. Middle Level Guidelines – between 30-45 minutes per core subject; 10-15 minutes per related arts; for a total of not more than 195 minutes iii. Carnegie Unit Courses (middle or high school) – between 30-45 minutes for half-unit course; between 45 minutes – 60 minutes for full unit courses
35
SC Pilot Program – eLearning Spartanburg County School District One 2018-2019
Survey
Foundation for Implementation
1. Describe the device distribution the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for this distribution. • 3 years prior: Infrastructure upgrades: switches, cabling, wifi access points in every classroom, bandwidth increase. • 2 years prior: Implementation of GSuite cloud based services, Learning Management System, roll-out of 1:1 of teacher devices, Teacher professional development of technology integration strategies • 1 year prior: Roll-Out of student 1:1 devices phased in over a period of 11 months
4. Describe the Learning Management System the district had in place before applying for the Pilot project. Please include the timeline for using this system. Google Classroom is the primary LMS implemented 2 years prior with extensive teacher PD in effective integration into daily instruction. At the time of the eLearning opportunity the LMS was firmly integrated.
5. Describe the instructional technology expectations and implementations in the district before applying for the Pilot project. Please include professional development strategies. Since the beginning of our technology initiative 3 years prior, each teacher has gradually increased the effective integration of technology into classroom instruction. Extensive PD and staff development has been in place for 3 years in order to drive the authentic adoption of technology. The job expectations of the each school’s media specialist was shifted 3 years to be a site level technology integration resource In addition, a Technology Integration Specialist was added at the District level to assist the development of Media Specialists, Instructional Coaches, and teachers. The effective use of technology has now been successfully woven into the fabric of our Staff Development with school and district opportunities being offered. In some cases the PD is “buffet style” allowing teachers to choose the technology PD that best suits their needs, and in some cases the training is mandated district-wide. The PD offerings have, and continue to be, a parallel of technology roll-out (i.e. as technology tools are rolled-out, the PD offerings are there to support). The eLearning pathway is a natural extension of 3 years of instructional technology expectations.
36
Pre-Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the communication strategies used prior to implementation. Please strategies to for Board Members, teachers, students, parents and community. If you have a district webpage for eLearning, please include the link here. Updates to the Board began at the selection in the pilot program and continue through pre- established monthly instructional reports. When we do use an eLearning day, we plan to utilize the district facebook and twitter social media outlets, school messenger for phone and email notification to parents, and release to press. We are currently in the process of
2. Mock or trial days. I have notes and links you have shared. If you’d like to include other notes or links, please describe here.
We have conducted multiple, small mocks trials. We began with a single mock “period” at one school. The next mock event followed a few weeks late at an entire 6th grade level for one teacher. We have expanded our mock to include successively larger groups of teachers and students. Our final mocks were beneficial in confirming readiness with hardware, management systems, filtering, etc.
Implementation Strategies
1. Describe the impact on instruction and learning when using eLearning days instead of school days canceled.
Not applicable, yet
2. Feedback from teachers, students, parents and administrators. Please use the 4 questions and share the results with me.
Not applicable, yet
3. Describe 1-3 strategies your district would change (do differently) before or during implementation. Even though we have not yet used an eLearning day yet, we can already see the importance of having a readiness checklist at all levels including classroom, school, and district. Procedural documentation for attendance clerks, teacher gradebooks, and hourly time cards. Communication, Communication, Communication.
37
Sample Website Communication (Kershaw County School District)
See: https://www.kcsdschools.net/elearning
38
EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: Academic Standards and Assessments and Public Awareness
DATE: June 10, 2019
ACTION ITEM: Report on the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children (ECENC) Program – Compliance and Assessment Results for 2017-18
PURPOSE/AUTHORITY Act 247 of 2018 and Section 12-6-3790(E)(6) of the South Carolina Code of Laws requires the EOC to “issue a report to the General Assembly documenting the impact of the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Program on student achievement. In addition, the report must include information on individual schools if at least fifty-one percent of the total enrolled students in the private school participated in the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Program in the prior school year.”
CRITICAL FACTS The attached report includes the following: • Information about the process for collecting individual student assessments; • Information on the participation and compliance of schools; • Information on the 2017-18 academic achievement of students who received grants from the ECENC program; and • Initial, though limited, state-level information on academic gains from school year 2016- 17 to 2017-18 for students who received grants from the ECENC program in 2017-18.
TIMELINE/REVIEW PROCESS September 4, 2018 Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs, in collaboration with EOC, begins process for developing a secure portal to collect student assessment from ECENC schools November 7, 2018 Schools begin uploading student assessment results for school year 2017- 18 and if available, school year 2016-17 January 14, 2019 Collection of student assessment results concludes March 5, 2019 EOC staff provided assessment data containing no personally identifiable information.
ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EOC Cost: $67,305 to the South Carolina Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs to create and maintain a secure portal that collects student assessment results.
Fund/Source: EIA funds appropriated for operation of the agency.
ACTION REQUEST
For approval For information
ACTION TAKEN
Approved Amended Not Approved Action deferred (explain)
REPORT ON THE EDUCATIONAL CREDIT FOR EXCEPTIONAL NEEDS CHILDREN (ECENC) PROGRAM
Compliance and Assessment Results for 2017-18
061.19 Contents Page Executive Summary ...... 3
Background ...... 7
Collection of Assessment Data ...... 9
Compliance and Analysis of Assessment Data ...... 13
Appendix ...... 29
1
2
Executive Summary
This report is the first annual report on the impact of the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children (ECENC) program as required by Act 247 of 2018. The ECENC program provides grants and parental tax credits to exceptional needs students attending private schools that meet specific eligibility requirements and that are approved by the Education Oversight Committee (EOC). Exceptional SC is a 501(c)(3) that raises and accepts funds and reviews student grant applications. The law defines qualifying students and eligible schools for participation in the ECENC program. The law also specifically requires the EOC annually to: issue a report to the General Assembly documenting the impact of the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Program on student achievement. In addition, the report must include information on individual schools if at least fifty-one percent of the total enrolled students in the private school participated in the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Program in the prior school year. The report must be according to each participating private school, and for participating students, in which there are at least thirty participating students who have scores for tests administered. If the Education Oversight Committee determines that the thirty participating-student cell size may be reduced without disclosing personally identifiable information of a participating student, the Education Oversight Committee may reduce the participating-student cell size, but the cell size may not be reduced to less than ten participating students. (Section 12-6-3790(E)(6) of the SC Code of Laws)
Act 247 of 2018 requires schools participating in the ECENC program to submit to the EOC student test scores that are used to provide program level reports to determine if students participating in the program have experienced measurable improvement. (b) student test scores, by category, on national achievement or state standardized tests, or both, for all grades tested and administered by the school receiving or entitled to receive scholarship grants pursuant to this section in the previous school year. The school also shall provide individual student test scores on national achievement or state standardized tests, or both, for any student in grades one through twelve who received a grant from the program during the prior school year. The information must be used to provide program level reports to determine whether students participating in the program have experienced measurable improvement. Students with disabilities for whom standardized testing is not appropriate are exempt from this requirement; (Section 12-6- 3790(E)(1)(b) of the SC Code of Laws)
3
This report, which meets the requirements of Act 247 of 2018, includes the following: • Information about the process for collecting individual student assessment results used to document the impact of the program on student achievement; • Information on the participation and compliance of schools; • Information on the 2017-18 academic achievement of students who received grants from the ECENC program. Because there was no information on the ethnicity or socioeconomic status of students who received grants in 2017-18, assessment results could not be analyzed by subgroup performance; and • Initial, though limited, state-level information on academic gains from school year 2016-17 to 2017-18 for students who received grants from the ECENC program in 2017-18. The authors of this report acknowledge that making direct comparisons between the academic performance of students receiving grants from the ECENC program on national assessments and South Carolina public-school students with disabilities and their performance on state summative assessments are not equitable. Finally, in designing the components of this report, the EOC staff reviewed the evaluations of the Florida Tax Credit (FTC) Scholarship Program that were conducted by the Learning Systems Institute at Florida State University for Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17.1 The FTC Scholarship Program was established in 2001 to award scholarships to children from low-income families who attend a private school or to assist with transportation costs to attend a public school in an adjacent district.2 Florida also provides scholarships for students with disabilities who attend a private school or transfer to another public school, the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program. To be eligible for a McKay Scholarship, a student must have attended a public school in the state of Florida in October and February of the prior year. The Florida Department of Education does not collect or report assessment data on students who receive a McKay Scholarship; however, the Department does provide quarterly reports containing information on student statistics.3
1 Evaluation of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program – Participation, Compliance and Test Scores in 2015-16 and in 2016-17. Learning Systems Institute. Florida State University. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5606/urlt/FTC_Report1516.pdf http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5606/urlt/FTC-Report1617.pdf. 2 Fact Sheet on Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program. Florida Department of Education. September 2018. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5606/urlt/FTC-Sept-2018.pdf. 3 Quarterly Reports, McKay Scholarships. Florida Department of Education. http://www.fldoe.org/schools/school- choice/k-12-scholarship-programs/mckay/quarterly-reports.stml.
4
Findings 1. Schools participating in the ECENC program responded to the request for assessment data by providing either assessment information or a reason for not having the information for 95 percent of the 2,327 students who received grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18 and who were enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12.
2. Actual assessment information for school year 2017-18 was obtained from schools participating in the ECENC program for approximately two-thirds of all students who received a grant from Exceptional SC in school year 2017-18.
3. Of the assessment data provided, the EOC could use assessment data for 1,399 students, or 60 percent of all students who received a grant from Exceptional SC in 2017-18 to calculate median percentile rankings in Reading and Mathematics.
4. At the state level, the assessment data results for school year 2017-18 for students who received a grant from Exceptional SC showed: a. The median Reading percentile rank was 47, and the median Mathematics percentile rank was 40. In Reading, approximately half of the students scored higher than 47 percent of students in a national representative sample of students. In Mathematics, half of the students scored higher than 40 percent of students in a nationally representative sample of students. b. The mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for Reading was 49.0 and for mathematics, 45.7, which is slightly lower than the national norm which includes students with and without exceptional needs. c. The data must be reviewed accordingly. Students receiving grants from Exceptional SC all have documented exceptional needs. One would expect that students participating in the ECENC program would score lower than a nationally representative sample of students that includes students with and without exceptional needs. However, using median national percentile ranks over time will provide information on the relative performance of ECENC students and information on their academic growth.
5. Based on the limited number of assessment results for students for whom assessment scores were provided for school years 2016-17 and 2017-18, there appears to be a slight decline in Reading scores but no difference in Mathematics scores from school year 2016-17 to school year 2017-18.
6. There were eight schools with more than 51 percent of its total school enrollment who received grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18. However, of these eight schools, three utilized assessments that could not be used in this evaluation. One school used portfolios to monitor student progress while two schools used hand- scored assessment results. The EOC is hiring an outside consultant to determine
5
if the hand-scored assessments can be used in next year’s evaluation and to monitor how student portfolios are being used to measure student progress in reading, mathematics or acquiring other skills.
7. For the remaining five schools that had more than 51 percent of its total school enrollment who received grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18:
a. The median percentile ranks in Reading ranged from 11.5 to 46, with all medians less than 50; similarly, the mean NCE ranged from 27.3 to 50, with all values less than or equal to 50. b. For Mathematics a similar pattern is present. The median percentile ranks ranged from 13.5 to 56 with one school having a median percentile rank above 50. The mean NCE in Mathematics ranged from 28.2 to 51.1. c. These values suggest that the students in these five schools generally scored lower on the assessments than did students nationally. Again, one would expect that students participating in the ECENC program would score lower than a nationally representative sample of students that includes students with and without exceptional needs, especially in these schools that have a majority of its students receiving grants from Exceptional SC. However, using median national percentile ranks over time will provide information on the relative performance of ECENC students in these schools and information on their academic growth.
Recommendations: 1. For future submissions, the EOC recommends that Exceptional SC also provide the following information - child’s date of birth as well as gender and race – to verify the student’s identity. 2. The EOC will work with schools to increase the percentage of valid assessment data reported by schools participating in the ECENC program.
6
Background
Since creation of the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children (ECENC) program in Fiscal Year 2013-14 through a proviso in the state budget, eligible independent schools participating in the program are required to administer a national achievement or state standardized tests to determine student progress. Furthermore, when applying to the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) for approval to participate in the ECENC program, a school had to submit student test scores for all grades tested and administered in the school. The EOC posted the school-level results as submitted by the schools on its website each year. Act 247 of 2018 codified the ECENC program into permanent law and created an additional reporting requirement. In addition to school-level test scores being provided and made public, the EOC must evaluate the ECENC program using individual student assessment results to determine the impact of the program on educational outcomes of students who received grants from Exceptional SC. The law specifically requires the EOC annually to: issue a report to the General Assembly documenting the impact of the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Program on student achievement. In addition, the report must include information on individual schools if at least fifty-one percent of the total enrolled students in the private school participated in the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Program in the prior school year. The report must be according to each participating private school, and for participating students, in which there are at least thirty participating students who have scores for tests administered. If the Education Oversight Committee determines that the thirty participating-student cell size may be reduced without disclosing personally identifiable information of a participating student, the Education Oversight Committee may reduce the participating-student cell size, but the cell size may not be reduced to less than ten participating students. (Section 12-6-3790(E)(6) of the SC Code of Laws) Act 247 of 2018 requires schools participating in the ECENC program to submit to the EOC student test scores that are used to provide program level reports to determine if students participating in the program have experienced measurable improvement. (b) student test scores, by category, on national achievement or state standardized tests, or both, for all grades tested and administered by the school receiving or entitled to receive scholarship grants pursuant to this section in the previous school year. The school also shall provide individual student test scores on national achievement or state standardized tests, or both, for any student in grades one through twelve who received a grant from the program during the prior school year. The information must be used to provide program level reports to determine whether students participating in the program have experienced
7
measurable improvement. Students with disabilities for whom standardized testing is not appropriate are exempt from this requirement; (Section 12-6- 3790(E)(1)(b) of the SC Code of Laws)
The law requires that an evaluation of the program’s impact on student achievement at the following levels to address the following questions: • At the state level, how did exceptional needs students who received grants from Exceptional SC under the ECENC program performing academically, both in terms of overall achievement and growth? • In schools where a majority of students enrolled in the school, as defined as fifty- one percent of the students received a grant from Exceptional SC, how did exceptional needs students perform academically, both in terms of overall achievement and growth?
8
Collection of Assessment Data
To maintain student privacy and to ensure the highest level of data security, the EOC contracted with the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (RFA) Office to oversee the collection of the individual student assessment results. RFA was selected because of its mission and work in collecting, storing and safeguarding health, demographic, and other state data. Following is a description of the data collection protocol and compliance.
Data Collection Timeline and Protocol Upon passage of Act 247 of 2018, the EOC met on two occasions in the spring and summer of 2018 with individuals who serve on or work for Exceptional SC and for schools that participated in the ECENC program. The goal of the meetings was to provide information about the process to be taken in obtaining the student assessment data and to solicit input on the actual information to be obtained on the secure portal. The EOC was particularly interested in knowing how to capture explanations from the schools on why a student assessment test score could not be provided. Below is the timeline of activities in the design of the secure portal: September 4, 2018 – RFA sent a data sharing memorandum of understanding (MOU) to Exceptional SC. RFA needed to have the names of students by school who received a grant from Exceptional SC in school year 2017-18 to be able to pre-populate the school-level information. September 10, 2018 – Schools participating in the ECENC program in school year 2018-19 were emailed a data sharing memorandum of understanding assuring the confidentiality of any and all individually identifiable information shared between the parties. A copy of the memorandum is included in the Appendix. Between September 10, 2018 and January 7, 2019 - Schools completed the MOU October 4, 2018 - RFA and Exceptional SC finalized data sharing memorandum of agreement. October 22, 2018 – Exceptional SC provided to RFA a list of students by school who received a grant from Exceptional SC in 2017-18. The data included: the child’s first, middle and last name, child’s grade, school name, and student ID. Between November 7, 2018 and January 14, 2019 - Schools that completed the MOU were able to upload student assessment results.
9
Only schools that completed the data sharing agreement with RFA were given access to the secure portal. Furthermore, RFA implemented the following procedures to maintain the confidentiality and security of the data portal: • Access restrictions based on enrollment information provide by Exceptional SC through a MOU with RFA. Every school is restricted to only seeing student data that has a matching enrollment for their school. A subset of RFA staff, specifically assigned to this project, can see all student data and uploaded assessments to conduct reviews and enter scoring data; however, these staff members must have been confirmed to have had their annual privacy training. • Schools must go through the project manager for access to the data portal, following execution of a MOU. • All users are given a login and one-time password, unique to them, to access the data portal. They must change their password upon login before accessing the rest of the data portal. RFA staff must also setup two-factor authentication before accessing the rest of the data portal due to their elevated data privileges. All passwords must comply with NIST 800-63 Authentication standards. • Data portal is hosted at the SC Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHHS) secured data center. Physical access to the building is restricted by State Government ID, where guests must sign-in and be escorted. The data center is further restricted to a subset of IDs controlled by SCDHHS and RFA servers are in a locked cabinet that only RFA IT may access. • Assessment data on the servers are GPG encrypted with the key only known by a select subset of the RFA staff with access to the data portal codebase.
The following screen shots provide information on data elements and the data portal:
10
School assessment upload form: Data elements viewable: Student Name, School year/grade Data elements keyed: Assessment Type, If “Other” the name of the assessment
RFA Reviewer’s data entry form: Data Elements for verification: Name, Assessment type, School year/ grade Data elements keyed: Assessment date, Verbal Score, Non-verbal score (Mathematics)
11
Only the official result from the testing vendor was accepted; unofficial handwritten or typed assessment data were rejected. Assessment data submitted without the student’s name or testing date visible were also rejected.
Recommendation: For future submissions, the EOC recommends that Exceptional SC also provide the following information - child’s date of birth as well as gender and race – to verify the student’s identity.
12
Compliance and Analysis of Assessment Data
As required by state law, schools participating in the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children (ECENC) program are required to administer national achievement or state standardized assessments, or both, at progressive grade levels to determine student progress. To date, private schools cannot administer state assessments which include, but are not limited to, SC READY in grades 3 through 8 and end-of-course assessments in Algebra 1, English 1, Biology and US History and The Constitution. Instead, private schools have the flexibility to choose any assessment to measure student performance. Schools that administer national assessments typically select an assessment or assessments that measure reading or English language arts (ELA) competencies and mathematics competencies. Examples of assessments that are used in elementary and middle school grades are the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS). Examples of assessments that are unique to high school are the ACT, PSAT, and SAT. Exceptional SC provided to RFA a datafile that contained a list of 2,327 students in kindergarten through grade 12 who received grants in the 2017-18 school year (Table 1). There were an additional 28 students with an indicated grade level of 4K that were submitted by Exceptional SC to RFA. These 28 students were not included in the data collection process because 4K students are not eligible to receive grants.
Table 1 Count of Children by Grade (K-12) who Received Grants from Exceptional SC 2017-18 Grade Level Number of Students Kindergarten 75 1 130 2 174 3 182 4 241 5 240 6 261 7 248 8 255 9 159 10 154 11 123 12 85 TOTAL 2,327 Source: RFA as provided by Exceptional SC.
13
Using this list, RFA populated the secure portal with the name and grade level of each student by school. To reiterate, only schools that completed the data sharing agreement with RFA were given access to the secure portal to upload individual student assessment reports for students whom Exceptional SC verified had received a grant in 2017-18 and had attended their school in 2017-18. Schools were asked specifically to upload a score report from a test publisher; therefore, scores obtained from hand-scoring of assessments by school officials or by the classroom teacher were not accepted. Schools that did not provide student scores from a test publisher score report were asked to provide a reason for not providing the information. Scores from achievement tests that were judged to best align with the content of Reading Comprehension and Mathematics Concepts were recorded. Similarly, scores from aptitude tests that best aligned with the content names Verbal and Non-Verbal were recorded. Although the assessments differ in meaning across publishers, they were treated as if they measure the areas of Reading Comprehension/Verbal Skills and Mathematics Concepts/Non-Verbal similarly: the labels used for the subjects in this report are Reading and Mathematics. Assessment data that included the national percentile rank or the national percentile rank score were documented. Recording national percentile rank scores enables comparability of scores across assessments, because the scores are assumed to be referenced to comparable nationally representative samples of students. A similar process was also utilized in analyzing the academic performance of students receiving a Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program. The EOC staff reviewed the evaluations of the Florida Tax Credit (FTC) Scholarship Program that were conducted by the Learning Systems Institute at Florida State University for Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17.4 The FTC Scholarship Program was established in 2001 to award scholarships to children from low-income families who attend a private school or to assist with transportation costs to attend a public school in an adjacent district.5 Florida also provides scholarships for students with disabilities who attend a private school or transfer to another public school, the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program. To be eligible, a student must have attended a public school in the state of Florida in October and February of the prior year. The Florida Department of Education does not collect or report assessment data on students who receive a McKay Scholarship; however, the Department does provide quarterly reports containing information on student statistics.6
4 Evaluation of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program – Participation, Compliance and Test Scores in 2015-16 and in 2016-17. Learning Systems Institute. Florida State University. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5606/urlt/FTC_Report1516.pdf http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5606/urlt/FTC-Report1617.pdf. 5 Fact Sheet on Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program. Florida Department of Education. September 2018. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5606/urlt/FTC-Sept-2018.pdf. 6 Quarterly Reports, McKay Scholarships. Florida Department of Education. http://www.fldoe.org/schools/school- choice/k-12-scholarship-programs/mckay/quarterly-reports.stml.
14
If schools had assessment data from school year 2016-17 on each student, they were given the option of uploading that information. It was not a requirement to upload the 2016-17 assessment data since Act 247 was not enacted until 2018. EOC staff reviewed the assessment data that were provided. These data contained a random number generated by RFA, and no personally identifiable student information was provided to the EOC.
Analysis of Data On March 5, 2019 the EOC received final data files from RFA to conduct the analyses. This dataset included records that had: (1) valid assessment reports or (2) a reason for not submitting an assessment score. All schools participating in the ECENC program in 2018-19 participated in the data collection process and provided either individual student assessment data or a reason for not providing the individual student assessment data to the EOC. There were 11 schools that participated in the program in 2017-18 but did not participate in 2018-19; six of these schools opted not to participate in 2017-18 and five schools were removed from the program due to non-compliance with program requirements. This March 2019 datafile contained 3,338 assessment records, where each record contained information from one assessment administration or an explanation of why the assessment information was not provided. The datafile did not contain the names of any students; RFA redacted all personally identifiable information from the datafile and instead generated a number for each record. Of these 3,338 records, 1,574 records contained assessments for the 2017-18 academic year, 887 records contained assessments for the 2016-17 academic year, and 695 records did not contain assessment results. Schools entered more than one assessment administration for some students; duplicate assessment for students were resolved to a single observation by selecting the most recent assessment. Resolving these duplicate assessments resulted in 1,574 students with valid assessment information for the 2017-18 academic year, 836 students with assessment information for the 2016-17 academic year, and 695 students with no assessment results for 2017-18. For these 1,574 students with valid assessment data for the 2017-18 school year, Table 2 documents the number and percent of students by grade level. Approximately 83 percent of all assessment results were for students in grades 3 through 10.
15
Table 2 Number and Percent of Valid Assessment Results by Grade Level, 2017-18 Grade Level Number Percent Kindergarten 24 2 1 47 3 2 86 5 3 127 8 4 186 12 5 172 11 6 174 11 7 199 13 8 192 12 9 124 8 10 120 8 11 93 6 12 30 2 TOTAL 1,574
The assessments reported are summarized in Table 3. The assessment most frequently reported at 32 percent was the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) assessment, which is a computer adaptive achievement test that can be administered to students in kindergarten through grade 12. Approximately 15 percent of all assessments reported were the Stanford Achievement Test, which is administered to students in grades K through 12, and fourteen percent of all assessments were the PSAT, which is administered to high school sophomores and juniors. Table 3 Number and Percent of Assessments Reported, 2017-18 Assessment Number Percent ACT 28 2 ACT Aspire 93 6 AIMSWEB 3 Less than 1 Comprehensive Testing Program (CTP) 78 5 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) 113 7 Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) 507 32 Otis-Lennon School Ability Test 1 Less than 1 (OLSAT) PSAT 222 14 SAT 29 2 Stanford Achievement Test 235 15 TerraNova 100 6 Woodcock-Johnson 148 9 Other 17 1 Total 1,574
16
Of the 695 students without assessment results for 2017-18, schools provided specific reasons for not providing results for 631 of these students. Table 4 documents that 36 percent of the students were in a grade for which the school did not administer a norm- referenced test, such as kindergarten or grade 12. Another 43 percent were assessed using other means including portfolios, private testing, self-scored assessments and private testing. Schools did not provide a reason for not submitting assessment results for 64 students. Table 4 Reasons for Not Providing Assessment Information Reason Number of Students Student was sick or absent on the day of testing. 12 Student left school before or enrolled after testing. 39 School did not assess grade level (includes students in 224 kindergarten and grade 12). Parents opted their child out of testing. 73 Academic progress was assessed via other means 271 including self-scored by teacher or staff. School indicated student was not enrolled in school in 12 2017-18. Total Reasons Given: 631
School provided no reason. 64
Compliance For school year 2017-18, the EOC analyzed compliance of ECENC schools with submitting assessment data using three scenarios presented in Table 5. Of the 2,327 students in kindergarten through grade 12 who received a grant from Exceptional SC in 2017-18, schools provided valid assessment data on 68 percent of the students. Only the official result from the testing vendor was accepted; unofficial handwritten or typed assessment data were rejected. Assessment data submitted without the student’s name or testing date visible were also rejected. Calculating compliance as the percentage of students in grades 3 through 10 only for which assessment data were provided, resulted in a compliance rate of 67 percent (1,168 of 1,740 students, Table 5). The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program measures compliance using grades 3 through 10. Students in K-2 and 11-12 typically have less opportunity to take assessments. In the early grades, assessments are generally administered for diagnostic purposes while assessments in grades 11 and 12 are typically used for college admissions tests. And, finally, if valid reasons for not submitting assessment data are included, compliance was approximately 95 percent.
17
Table 5 Indicators of School Compliance Scenario 1: K-12 Students with Assessment Data Number of Students (K-12) Receiving Exceptional SC Grants* 2,327 Number of students with Valid Assessment Data 1,574 Percent of Students (K-12) with Valid Assessment Data 68%
Scenario 2: Grades 3-10 Students with Assessment Data Number of Students (3-10) Receiving Exceptional SC Grants* 1,740 Number of students with Valid Assessment Data 1,168 Percent of Students (3-10) with Valid Assessment Data 67%
Scenario 3: K-12 Students with Assessment Data or Valid Reasons Number of Students (K-12) Receiving Exceptional SC Grants* 2,327 Number of Students (K-12) with Valid Assessment Data 1,574 Number of Students (K-12) with Valid Reasons for Not Submitting 631 Assessment Data Percent of Students (K-12) with Valid Assessment Data or Reasons for Not 95% Submitting Assessment Data *Excludes 28 students in 4K who received grants.
Assessment Data of Exceptional SC Students in 2017-18 The EOC staff analyzed the assessment data to determine: (1) for all students who received a grant from Exceptional SC in 2017-18 and for whom assessment data were collected, how well did students in grades kindergarten through grade 12 statewide perform based on national percentile ranks; and (2) how well did students perform in schools for which at least 51 percent of students in the school received grants from Exceptional SC. The EOC staff used or converted assessment data into percentile rank scores based on the national norms for their students. When national percentile rank scores were not available, reports usually provided a scale score, for example, a reported score on the SAT of 540 or an ACT Score of 22 are examples of scale scores. For the ACT, SAT, and PSAT, EOC staff converted scale scores to percentile ranks using conversion tables published online. When national norms were not available, such as in the case with the Woodcock Johnson assessment, the assessment data were not included. By reporting information from all assessments as percentile ranks, a common metric is in place; an assumption is made in this process that the national norms for different assessments are comparable – which may not be justified. For example, when a student has a national percentile rank score of 45, the student scored higher than 45 percent of students in a nationally representative sample of students. However, summarizing percentile ranks across students is still problematic, because whereas equal differences
18
between scale scores imply equal differences in student achievement (or aptitude), equal differences in percentile ranks do not. Therefore, percentile ranks should not simply be averaged. For example, on the SAT Verbal, the difference between scores of 530 and 550 (20 points) implies the same difference in student achievement as does the difference between scores of 640 and 660 (20 points). The corresponding percentile rank for an SAT Verbal score of 530 is 58 and for a SAT Verbal score of 550 is 65 (a 7-point difference in percentile rank), and the corresponding percentile rank for an SAT Verbal score of 640 is 88 and for a SAT Verbal score of 660 is 92 (a 4-point difference in percentile rank). Although the differences between SAT Verbal scores of 530 and 550, and 640 and 660 suggest the same differences in academic achievement, the differences between their percentile ranks are not the same. Two possible solutions to this problem are available. The first is to report median percentile ranks. The median percentile rank is the percentile rank that half of the students are below, and half are above; it gives information about where a typical student performs. Percentile ranks can be computed for assessments in the 2016-17 school year and for assessments in the 2017-18 school year. If the median percentile rank from both academic years is the same, the inference can be made that these students increased in their academic achievement as a typical student would. If the median percentile rank from 2017-18 is higher than for 2016-17, these students may have made greater progress than typical students. The second is to convert all percentile rank scores to Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs). NCEs have a mean of 50, and a range from 0 to 100. A student with a percentile rank less than 50 will have an NCE less than 50. For example, a student with a percentile rank of 30 will have an NCE score of 39, while a student with a percentile rank of 70 has an NCE of 61. NCEs have the property that the difference between 35 and 45 implies the same difference in academic achievement as between 70 and 80 and can therefore be subtracted from one another and averaged. If the average of the NCEs for both years is the same (a difference of 0), the inference can be made that students made progress similar to a typical student. If the NCE in 2017-18 is greater than the NCE from 2016-17, these students appear to have gained more than students in 2016-17. One advantage of using NCEs is that the scores from each student (2016-17 and 2017- 18 are included in the indicator of student progress). A disadvantage of NCEs is that there is no simple reference for whether the difference in the average NCEs from 2016- 17 to 2017-18 is large or small. What does it mean to have an average difference of NCEs of 5? It is not clear. If percentile ranks are used, when the median 2017-18 percentile rank is 5 points higher than the median 2016-17 percentile rank, it means that in 2017-18 students scored higher than 5 percent more students than they did in 2016-17.
19
Statewide Results: Of all students who received ECENC grants in school year 2017-18, 60 percent or 1,399 students had valid assessment data collected. Assessment data results for some assessments like the Woodcock Johnson assessment were excluded because the scores could not be converted into national percentile rankings. The distribution of scores for Reading and Mathematics are presented in Figure 1. For Reading, assessment results were evenly distributed from high to low percentile ranks, with approximately 10 percent of students in each 10-point range of percentile ranks, and not clear associated with the assessment score. For Mathematics, there were slightly more assessment results at lower percentile ranks, with approximately 12 percent of students scoring in the lowest four ranges, and only 6 percent of students scoring in the highest two ranges displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Distributions of Mathematics and Reading Scores from 2017-18
15
10
Percent of Students 5
0 0 1-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 Score Assessment: Mathematics Reading
20
The statewide results are presented in Table 6 below. The median Reading percentile rank was 47, and the median Mathematics percentile rank was 40; both of which suggest that the overall academic level of ECENC students is lower than students nationally. The mean NCEs for Reading was 49.0 and 45.7 for Mathematics, both of which are slightly lower than 50, which is the NCE for an average (typical) student, which again implies that ECENC students are slightly lower in their overall academic level than students nationally. A reminder: students receiving grants from Exceptional SC all have documented exceptional needs whereas national norms include students with and without disabilities. Table 6 All Students in 2017-18 (n= 1,399) Reading Mathematics Median Percentile Rank 47 40 Mean Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) 49.0 45.7
Making direct comparisons between the academic performance of students receiving grants from Exceptional SC and South Carolina public school students with disabilities is problematic for many reasons. First, students in private schools cannot take state summative assessments; therefore, these students do not take assessments that measure their progress in learning state academic content standards. Instead, students in private schools participating in the ECENC program take national assessments or formative assessments like the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP). Second, students receiving grants from Exceptional SC are students who have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or are students who have been diagnosed by a licensed speech-language pathologist, psychiatrist or medical, mental health or health care provider as having a neurodevelopmental disorder, a substantial sensory or physical impairment or some other disability or acute or chronic condition that impedes the students’ ability to learn and succeed in school. On the other hand, public school students with disabilities who take the South Carolina College- and Career-Ready Assessment (SC READY) in grades 3 through 8 are students with an IEP. Public-school students with significant cognitive disabilities take the South Carolina Alternate Assessment on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS). Data from AA-AAS is not included in this report. Third, there are no data to confirm or deny that students with disabilities who are enrolled in public schools have comparable disabilities or exceptional needs to students receiving a grant from Exceptional SC or that students served in public schools or in the ECENC program have comparable socioeconomic status.
21
Schools with 51 percent or more students receiving grants from Exceptional SC: There were eight schools that had more than 51 percent of its total school enrollment receiving grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18. Total school enrollment was determined using information provided by the schools on their 2017-18 application to participate in the ECENC program. These eight schools included: • Camperdown Academy • Einstein Academy • HOPE Academy • Miracle Academy Preparatory School • St. John Catholic School-Charleston • The Barclay School • The Chandler School • Trident Academy However, of these eight schools, three utilize assessments in a way that scores could not be provided for this evaluation. The Barclay School uses portfolios rather than national assessments to measure student progress; national percentile ranks are not available for portfolios. Camperdown Academy and Trident Academy uses hand-scored assessment results; currently stipulated in law is that student scores come from a test publisher student score report, preventing the use of scores from hand-scored assessments. The EOC is hiring an outside consultant to determine if the hand-scored assessments can be used in next year’s evaluation and to monitor how student portfolios are being used to measure student progress in reading, mathematics or acquiring other skills at The Barclay School. A summary of the scores obtained from the schools for which data was available are provided in Table 7. For each school, the median percentile ranks in Reading range from 11.5 to 46, with all medians less than 50; similarly, the mean NCE ranges from 27.3 to 50, with all values less than or equal to 50. For Mathematics a similar pattern is present, the median percentile ranks range from 13.5 to 56 with only 1 school having a median percentile rank above 50. The mean NCE in Mathematics ranges from 28.2 to 51.1. These values suggest that the students in these schools score lower on their assessments than do students nationally.
22
Table 7 Reading, 2017-18 Median Mean School n Percentile NCE Rank Einstein Academy 53 39 43.1 HOPE Academy 44 12 27.3 Miracle Academy Preparatory School 47 46 50 St. John Catholic School-Charleston 16 11.5 31.3 The Chandler School 58 37.5 46
Mathematics, 2017-18 Median Mean School n Percentile NCE Rank Einstein Academy 55 14 30.5 HOPE Academy 38 16.5 28.2 Miracle Academy Preparatory School 47 56 51.1 St. John Catholic School-Charleston 16 13.5 30.1 The Chandler School 58 31.5 42.6
Gain scores from 2016-17 to 2017-18 for those that have scores Schools were asked but not required to submit assessment data for school year 2016-17 for students who received grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18. Of the 1,399 students for whom the EOC had assessment data, there were 461 students with Reading scores in both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years, which is 20 percent of the students with ECENC scholarships. For Mathematics, there were 820 matched students, which is 35 percent of the students with ECENC scholarships. Based on these sampling percentages, caution must be exercised not to over interpret the results presented here. Even greater caution must be exercised when considering data at the school level, as the numbers of students reported on for each school in the matched student samples are all less than 40. Tables 8 through 12 document the assessment results for matched students in the schools having at least 51 percent of their students who received a grant from Exceptional SC as well as in all schools in the state. For all students, the median Reading percentile rank in 2016-17 was 51, and the median percentile rank in 2017-18 was 47 (Table 8); the mean NCE in Reading was 51.1 in 2016- 17, and 48 in 2017-18 (Table 10); and the average NCE gain was -3.1 (Table 12). All of
23 these measures suggest that the 2017-18 scores may be slightly lower than the 2016-17 scores. For Mathematics, the median percentile rank in 2016-17 was 42, and the median percentile rank in 2017-18 was 40 (Table 9); the mean NCE in Reading was 45.2 in 2016- 17, and 45.8 in 2017-18 (Table 11); and the average NCE gain was 0.6 (Table 12). All of these differences were very small. The most appropriate conclusion based on these data is that there is not enough evidence to suggest a change in student achievement from 2016-17 to 2017-18. No evaluation was made of the pattern of scores over time for individual schools because the number of students with data for both 2016-17 and 2017-18 was too small.
Table 8 Median Reading Scores for All Students in 2017-18 and for Students with Data in Both 2016-17 and 2017-18 (Matched Students) Matched Student Median Percentile Rank School n 2016-17 2017-18 Einstein Academy 14 63 32.5 HOPE Academy 9 * * Miracle Academy Preparatory School 23 28 46 St. John Catholic School-Charleston 5 * * The Chandler School 20 61 45.5 All Schools 461 51 47 * Fewer than 10 students.
Table 9 Median Mathematics Scores for All Students in 2017-18 and for Students with Data in Both 2016-17 and 2017-18 (Matched Students) Matched Students Median Percentile Rank School n 2016-17 2017-18 Einstein Academy 34 40 14 HOPE Academy 18 40.5 6 Miracle Academy Preparatory School 36 29 54.5 St. John Catholic School-Charleston 10 53.5 22 The Chandler School 39 50 30 All Schools 820 42 40
24
Table 10 Mean Reading NCE Scores for All Students in 2017-18 and for Students with Data in Both 2016-17 and 2017-18 (Matched Students) Matched Students Mean School n 2016-17 2017-18 Einstein Academy 14 60.4 40.4 HOPE Academy 9 * * Miracle Academy Preparatory School 23 43.0 47.2 St. John Catholic School-Charleston 5 * * The Chandler School 20 56.7 45.0 All Schools 461 51.1 48.0 * Fewer than 10 students.
Table 11 Mean Mathematics NCE Scores for All Students in 2017-18 and for Students with Data in Both 2016-17 and 2017-18 (Matched Students) Matched Students Mean School n 2016-17 2017-18 Einstein Academy 34 45.4 29.7 HOPE Academy 18 47.0 24.6 Miracle Academy Preparatory School 36 39.7 51.0 St. John Catholic School-Charleston 10 50.3 34.6 The Chandler School 39 49.6 42.4 All Schools 820 45.2 45.8 * Fewer than 10 students.
Table 12 Average NCE Gain Scores for Reading and Mathematics School Reading Mathematics N Mean n Mean Einstein Academy 14 -20.0 34 -15.7 HOPE Academy 9 * 18 -22.4 Miracle Academy Preparatory School 23 -36.4 36 11.3 St. John Catholic School-Charleston 5 * 10 -15.7 The Chandler School 20 -11.6 39 -7.3 All Schools 461 -3.1 820 0.6 * Fewer than 10 students.
25
Findings 1. Schools participating in the ECENC program responded to the request for assessment data by providing either assessment information or a reason for not having the information for 95 percent of the 2,327 students who received grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18.
2. Actual assessment information was obtained from schools participating in the ECENC program for approximately two-thirds of all students who received a grant from Exceptional SC in school year 2017-18.
3. Of the assessment data provided, the EOC could use assessment data for 1,399 students or 60 percent of all students who received a grant from Exceptional SC in 2017-18 to calculate median percentile rankings in Reading and Mathematics.
4. At the state level, the assessment data results for school year 2017-18 for students who received a grant from Exceptional SC showed: a. The median Reading percentile rank was 47, and the median Mathematics percentile rank was 40. In Reading, approximately, half of the students scored higher than 47 percent of students in a national representative sample of students. In Mathematics, half of the students scored higher than 40 percent of students in a nationally representative sample of students. b. The mean Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) for Reading was 49.0 and for mathematics, 45.7, which is slightly lower than the national norm which includes students with and without exceptional needs. c. The data must be reviewed accordingly. Students receiving grants from Exceptional SC all have documented exceptional needs. One would expect that students participating in the ECENC program would score lower than a nationally representative sample of students that includes students with and without exceptional needs. However, using median national percentile ranks over time will provide information on the relative performance of ECENC students and information on their academic growth.
5. Based on the limited number of assessment results for students for whom assessment scores were provided for school years 2016-17 and 2017-18, there appears to be a slight decline in Reading scores but no difference in Mathematics scores from school year 2016-17 to school year 2017-18.
6. There were eight schools with more than 51 percent of its total school enrollment who received grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18. However, of these eight schools, three utilized assessments that could not be used in this evaluation. One school used portfolios to monitor student progress while two schools used hand- scored assessment results. The EOC is hiring an outside consultant to determine if the hand-scored assessments can be used in next year’s evaluation and to
26
monitor how student portfolios are being used to measure student progress in reading, mathematics or acquiring other skills.
7. For the remaining five schools that had more than 51 percent of its total school enrollment who received grants from Exceptional SC in 2017-18:
a. The median percentile ranks in Reading ranged from 11.5 to 46, with all medians less than 50; similarly, the mean NCE ranged from 27.3 to 50, with all values less than or equal to 50. b. For Mathematics a similar pattern is present. The median percentile ranks ranged from 13.5 to 56 with one school having a median percentile rank above 50. The mean NCE in Mathematics ranged from 28.2 to 51.1. c. These values suggest that the students in these five schools generally scored lower on the assessments than did students nationally. Again, one would expect that students participating in the ECENC program would score lower than a nationally representative sample of students that includes students with and without exceptional needs, especially in these schools that have a majority of its students receiving grants from Exceptional SC. However, using median national percentile ranks over time will provide information on the relative performance of ECENC students in these schools and information on their academic growth.
Recommendation: The EOC will work with schools to increase the percentage of valid assessment data reported by schools participating in the ECENC program.
27
28
Appendix
29
30
SOUTH CAROLINA REVENUE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS OFFICE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
Click here to enter text.
and
South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office
This Agreement is entered into by Click here to enter text., hereinafter referred to as “Data Owner” and the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office, hereinafter referred to as “RFA.”
Data Owner and RFA mutually assure each other that they will protect the confidentiality of any and all individually identifiable information shared with or made available to other parties in compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232(g), the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and other applicable State and federal privacy regulations.
The purpose of this Agreement is for Data Owner to submit the assessment results of students receiving a grant from Exceptional SC to RFA to support the Education Oversight Committee’s (EOC) annual report documenting "the impact of the Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Program on student achievement" as required by Act 247 of 2018, Section 12-6-3790(E)(6).
Obligations and Activities of Data Owner. a) Data Owner shall obtain consent, authorization, or permission from the individuals that may be required by applicable state or federal laws and/or regulations prior to RFA furnishing the individually identifiable information pertaining to an individual. Such authorizations or permissions shall be furnished to RFA upon request. b) Provide to RFA with any changes in, or revocation of, permission by the individuals to use or disclose individually identifiable information, if such changes affect RFA’s permitted or required uses and disclosures. c) Provide to RFA a copy of the test score sheet of each student who received a grant from Exceptional SC in 2017-18, and if available, assessment results for 2016-17.
Obligations and Activities of RFA a) RFA will not use or disclose individually identifiable information other than as permitted or required by this Agreement or as required by state and federal law or as otherwise authorized by Data Owner.
DRAFT: 8/30/18 Last Updated April 23, 2019
b) RFA will use appropriate safeguards to prevent use or disclosure of the individually identifiable information other than as provided for by this Agreement. RFA maintains and uses appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of and to prevent non-permitted use or disclosure of individually identifiable information. These safeguards are required regardless of the mechanism used to transmit the information. c) RFA will mitigate, to the extent practicable, any harmful effect that is known to RFA of a use or disclosure of individually identifiable information by RFA or its workforce in violation of the requirements of this Agreement. d) RFA will report to Data Owner, in writing, any use and/or disclosure of individually identifiable information that is not permitted or required by this Agreement of which RFA becomes aware as soon as reasonable, but no more than 72 hours following knowledge of a breach of confidentiality, pursuant to Act No. 284, 2016 S.C. Acts, Proviso 117. e) RFA will ensure that any agent, including a subcontractor, to whom it provides individually identifiable information, received from, or created or received by RFA, executes a written agreement obligating the agent or subcontractor to comply with all the terms of the Agreement.
Permitted Uses and Disclosures by RFA a) Functions and Activities: Except as otherwise limited in this and any other agreement between RFA and Data Owner, RFA may use or disclose individually identifiable information only for purposes authorized by Data Owners in a separate written agreement or amendment to this agreement, if such use or disclosure of individually identifiable information would not violate any applicable state or federal laws if done by Data Owners themselves. RFA may pass individually identifiable information to any of its subcontractors for use in filling the obligations of this Agreement as long as the subcontractor adheres to the conditions of this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, data being sent directly to any subcontractor to be used in data aggregation and quality assurance on behalf of RFA or Data Owners. b) RFA may make available individually identifiable information, with permission of Data Owners and in compliance with any applicable state or federal laws, to other entities as authorized by Data Owners in a separate written agreement or amendment to this agreement, if such disclosure of individually identifiable information would not violate any state or federal laws. c) RFA and any of its subcontractors, except as otherwise limited in this Agreement, may use individually identifiable information to provide feedback on quality issues and comparative analyses using data solely from this project or data generated under the data aggregation authority of this Agreement. d) RFA upon entering into an agreement using individually identifiable information for any of its functions and activities on behalf of this project or in its general operations will make available that agreement to Data Owner or Data Owners upon request.
DRAFT: 8/30/18 Last Updated April 23, 2019
Term and Termination. a) Term: This Agreement shall commence upon the date of the last signature and shall terminate when all of the individually identifiable information provided by Data Owner to RFA, or created or received by RFA, is destroyed or returned to Data Owner, or, if it is infeasible to return or destroy individually identifiable information, protections are extended to such individually identifiable information in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4. b) Termination for Cause: Upon Data Owner’s reasonable determination that RFA has breached a material term of this Agreement, Data Owner shall be entitled to do any one or more of the following: i) Give RFA written notice of the existence of such breach and an opportunity to cure upon mutually agreeable terms. If RFA does not cure the breach or end the violation according to such terms, or if RFA and Data Owner are unable to agree upon such terms, Data Owner may immediately terminate any agreement between Data Owner and RFA which is the subject of such breach. ii) Immediately stop all further disclosures of individually identifiable information to RFA pursuant to each agreement between Data Owner and RFA which is the subject of such breach. c) Effect of Termination: Upon termination of the contract or upon written demand from Data Owner, RFA agrees to immediately return or destroy, except to the extent infeasible, all individually identifiable information received from, created by, or received by RFA, including all such individually identifiable information which RFA has disclosed to its employees, subcontractors and/or agents. Destruction shall include destruction of all copies including backup tapes and other electronic backup medium. In the event the return or destruction of some or all such individually identifiable information is infeasible, individually identifiable information not returned or destroyed pursuant to this paragraph shall be used or disclosed only for those purposes that make return or destruction infeasible. d) Continuing Privacy Obligation: The obligation of RFA to protect the privacy of individually identifiable information is continuous and survives any termination, cancellation, expiration, or other conclusion of this Agreement or any other agreement between Data Owner and RFA. 5) Notices. All notices pursuant to this Agreement must be given in writing and shall be effective when received if hand-delivered or upon dispatch if sent by reputable overnight delivery service, facsimile or U.S. Mail to the appropriate address or facsimile number as set forth at the end of this Agreement.
6) Miscellaneous. a) Data Owner and RFA agree that Individuals who are the subject of individually identifiable information are not third-party beneficiaries of this Agreement. b) The parties acknowledge that state and federal laws relating to electronic data security and privacy are rapidly evolving and that amendment of this Agreement may be required to provide for procedures to ensure compliance with such developments. The parties specifically agree to take such action as is necessary to implement the standards and requirements any applicable laws relating to the security or confidentiality of individually identifiable information. The parties understand and agree that Data Owner must receive satisfactory written assurance from RFA that RFA will adequately safeguard all Information that it receives or creates pursuant to this Agreement. Upon request by Data Owner, RFA agrees to promptly enter into negotiations with
DRAFT: 8/30/18 Last Updated April 23, 2019
Data Owner concerning the terms of any amendment to the Agreement embodying written assurances consistent with the standards and requirements of any applicable laws. Data Owner may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice in the event RFA does not promptly enter into negotiations to amend this Agreement when requested by Data Owner pursuant to this Section. c) In the event that any provision of this Agreement violates any applicable statute, ordinance or rule of law in any jurisdiction that governs this Agreement, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of such violation without invalidating any other provision of this Agreement. d) This Agreement may not be amended, altered or modified except by written agreement signed by Data Owner and RFA. e) No provision of this Agreement may be waived except by an agreement in writing signed by the waiving party. A waiver of any term or provision shall not be construed as a waiver of any other term or provision. Nothing in Section 2 of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any legally- recognized claim of privilege available to Data Owner. f) The persons signing below have the right and authority to execute this Agreement for their respective entities and no further approvals are necessary to create a binding Agreement. g) Neither Data Owner nor RFA shall use the names or trademarks of the other party or of any of the respective party’s affiliated entities in any advertising, publicity, endorsement, or promotion unless prior written consent has been obtained for the particular use contemplated. h) All references herein to specific statutes, codes or regulations shall be deemed to be references to those statutes, codes or regulations as may be amended from time to time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement effective upon last dated signature.
South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office Click or tap here to enter text. Health and Demographics
BY: BY:
W. David Patterson, Ph.D., Chief
Date Date
DRAFT: 8/30/18
The SC Education Oversight Committee is an independent, non-partisan group made up of 18 educators, business persons, and elected leaders. Created in 1998, the committee is dedicated to reporting facts, measuring change, and promoting progress within South Carolina’s education system.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions, please contact the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) staff for additional information. The phone number is 803.734.6148. Also, please visit the EOC website at www.eoc.sc.gov for additional resources.
The Education Oversight Committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or handicap in its practices relating to employment or establishment and administration of its programs and initiatives. Inquiries regarding employment, programs and initiatives of the Committee should be directed to the Executive Director 803.734.6148.
EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: Academic Standards and Assessments and Public Awareness
DATE: June 10, 2019
ACTION ITEM: Results of the 2018 Parent Survey
PURPOSE/AUTHORITY Section 59-28-190 of the Parental Involvement in Their Children’s Education Act requires the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to “survey parents to determine if state and local efforts are effective in increasing parental involvement.” In addition, Section 59-18-900 of the Education Accountability Act (EAA) requires that the annual school report cards include “evaluations of the school by parents, teachers, and students” as performance indicators to evaluate schools. The tool that has been adopted by the EOC and administered by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) to meet these statutory requirements is the annual parent survey.
CRITICAL FACTS The parent survey was commissioned by the EOC and designed by the Institute for Families in Society at the University of South Carolina in 2001. The survey is designed to determine parent perceptions of their child's school and to evaluate the effectiveness of state and local parental involvement programs. Since 2002 the South Carolina Department of Education has annually administered the survey, and the EOC has provided an annual review of the survey results. The attached report reflects the results of the 2018 administration of the parent survey.
TIMELINE/REVIEW PROCESS The analysis was conducted in April and May of 2019.
ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EOC Cost: No fiscal impact beyond current appropriations
Fund/Source:
ACTION REQUEST
For approval For information
ACTION TAKEN
Approved Amended Not Approved Action deferred (explain)
2018
PARENT SURVEY
Annual Report
06.10.19 CONTENTS Page
Acknowledgements ...... ii
Executive Summary ...... 1
Administration of the 2018 Parent Survey ...... 5
Respondents of the 2018 Parent Survey ...... 7
Results of the 2018 Parent Survey ...... 13
Appendix: Copy of the 2018 Parent Survey ...... 31
Acknowledgements
The Education Oversight Committee (EOC) acknowledges the ongoing assistance of Cynthia Hearn and Marisa Garcia-Quintana of the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) in providing data files, timely updates and important information on the annual administration of the parent survey. The EOC also appreciates the parents, teachers, and students who took the time to complete and return their annual surveys, because their perspectives are critical in evaluating public schools. Finally, the EOC is also grateful for principals and administrators who encouraged participation in the survey, and who oversaw the administration of the survey.
ii
iii
Executive Summary Background: The parent survey was designed in 2001 to meet the requirements of the Education Accountability Act (EAA) and the Parental Involvement in Their Children’s Education Act. Section 59-18-900 of the EAA requires that the annual school report card include “evaluations of the school by parents, teachers, and students” as performance indicators to evaluate schools. In addition, Section 59-28-190 of the Parental Involvement in Their Children’s Education Act requires the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to “survey parents to determine if state and local efforts are effective in increasing parental involvement.” The tool that has been adopted by the EOC and administered by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) to meet these statutory requirements is the annual parent survey.
Since 2002 the SCDE has administered the parent survey to a sample of parents whose children attended public schools in South Carolina. From its inception, the parent survey contains items regarding parent perceptions of the learning environment in the school, home and school relations, and the social and physical environment of the school. Additional questions document characteristics of the parents and the children of the parents responding to the survey. The 2017 parent survey included three new items that focused on parent perceptions of their child’s Individual Graduation Plan (IGP). Also, a change was made to the definition of bullying provided to parents in the 2017 survey. These changes have been retained for the 2018 survey. The following definition of bullying was provided on the 2018 survey:
Bullying means a gesture, electronic communication, or written, verbal, physical, or sexual act that is reasonably perceived to have the effect of harming a student physically or emotionally or damaging a student’s property or placing a student in reasonable fear of personal harm or property damage or insulting or demeaning a student.
The parents of students in the highest grade at all elementary, middle and high schools are surveyed. In high schools and career centers, parents of all 11th graders are surveyed. In schools with a grade configuration that spans multiple levels, parents of children in multiple grades are surveyed. For example, in a school with a grade span of grades 6 through 10, parents of children in grades 8 and 10 are surveyed. For parents in schools with a grade span of K-12, parents of children in grades 5, 8 and 11 are surveyed. Parents in schools containing grades 2 or lower (K- 1, K-2, and 1-2 configurations) are not surveyed. Annually, the EOC has analyzed the results of the parent survey and issued reports. The reports are online at www.eoc.sc.gov.
1
Survey Responses: A total of 63,913 parent surveys were returned; however, 5,679 (8.9 percent) of these surveys were missing responses to the following five survey items: 1) the overall satisfaction of the school’s learning environment; 2) the overall satisfaction of the school’s social and physical environment; 3) the overall satisfaction of the school’s home and school relations; 4) the grade level of the student; and 5) the gender of the responding parent. If all five of these questions were missing responses, the record was considered to be incomplete. For the 2017 parent survey a total of 58,435 surveys were returned, with 1,350 (2.3 percent) of the surveys missing responses to these same five survey items.
The total numbers of surveys returned for 2017 and 2018 were 55,844 and 63,913, respectively, which documents an increase of 8,069 surveys (14 percent) in 2018; however, the number of surveys with complete information from 2017 and 2018 were 54,494 and 58,234, respectively, which is an increase of 3,740 (7 percent). Estimates are that between 33 and 39 percent of all eligible parents surveyed responded to the 2018 parent survey, and the percentage of completed surveys ranged from 30 to 36 percent. Whether considering surveys returned or completed surveys, there was an increase in parent responses from 2017 to 2018.
An analysis of the respondents to the 2018 parent survey concluded that the survey responses typically overrepresented the perceptions of parents who had children in elementary schools and underrepresented the perceptions of parents who had children in high school. Respondents typically obtained higher educational achievements and had greater median household incomes than the general population of South Carolina. From 2017 to 2018 the percentages of parents reporting each level of education differed by less than half of 1 percent (0.5). There also did not appear to be any difference in the income levels of respondents from 2017 to 2018. As in prior years, the “typical” parent responding to the survey was a white female having attended or graduated from college and having a household income of greater than $35,000. With respect to the ethnicity of children in the public schools of South Carolina in 2017-18, parents whose children were African American were underrepresented by 5.5 percent, and parents whose children were Hispanic were underrepresented by 1.4 percent in the respondents, while parents whose children were white were overrepresented by 6.4 percent.
Parent Survey Results: The results of the 2018 parent survey demonstrated that parent satisfaction levels with the three characteristics measured - the learning environment, home and school relations, and social and physical environment of their child’s school - were consistent with
2
the prior year’s results. Changes are judged to be substantial when an increase or decrease of three or more percent occurs. Satisfaction is defined as the percentage of parents who agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the learning environment, home and school relations, and social and physical environment of their child’s school. Percentage of Parents Satisfied with Each Characteristic: 2015-2018 Difference between Characteristic 2018 2017 2016 2015 2018 and 2017 Learning Environment 87.0 87.1 87.5 87.6 (0.1) Home and School Relations 73.7 73.8 74.0 73.1 (0.1) Social and Physical Environment 83.9 85.1 85.2 85.3 (1.2)
Parents of students in elementary schools consistently had higher satisfaction levels with their child’s school than did parents of students in middle school or high school. For all three characteristics, the percentages of parents satisfied differed by 2 percent or less between parents of middle and high school students; these differences are too small to claim that parents of middle and high school students differ in their perceptions of these characteristics. Regardless of the school type (elementary, middle, or high), parents were most satisfied with the learning environment of the school, and least satisfied with the home and school relations. Percentage of Parents Satisfied with Each Characteristic by School Setting, 2018 Home and School Social and Physical School Type Learning Environment Relations Environment Elementary 89.6 78.1 88.4 Middle 85.4 69.4 80.0 High 84.6 69.9 78.0
Parents indicated they are involved with their child’s learning at home by making their child do homework (95.0 percent), helping their child with homework (93.7 percent), and limiting their child’s time on television and other electronic devices (83.9 percent). Parents reported that their work schedule continued to be the greatest obstacle to their involvement with their child’s learning in the school setting.
Parent Reported Obstacles to Parental Involvement in 2018 Work Schedule 57.0% Lack of timely notification of volunteer opportunities 24.3% School does not encourage involvement 15.5% Family and health problems 14.0% Lack of child or adult care services 14.6% Involvement not appreciated 10.0% Transportation 10.1%
3
Approximately two-thirds of parents believed that the teachers and staff in their child’s school intervened to prevent bullying or that the school had an anti-bullying plan. Approximately 20 percent of parents reported that their child had been bullied. Between 2015 and 2018 the results from the annual parent surveys show a slight increase (1.1 percent) in the percentage of parents who reported their child had been bullied. When bullying occurred, parents most frequently reported that it occurred in the classroom (13.3 percent). The second most frequent location for bullying was at some other location in the school (10.0 percent). The locations parents reported the least amount of bullying was at sporting events (less than 1 percent).
Three questions asked about the individualized graduation plan (IGP) process. The first asked the parent if they thought the IGP process was beneficial to their child. The second asked if during the IGP conference, the counselor discussed their child’s academic progress and career goals. The third asked if parents recommended other parents/guardians participate in the IGP conference with their children. Overall, 80 percent of parents indicated they were satisfied with the IGP process, 77 percent of the parents of middle school students and 84.4 percent of the parents of high school students.
Parents’ Overall Satisfaction with the IGP Process by School Type Number of Agree/ Disagree/ School Type Parents Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Middle (Grade 8) 17,647 77.0 8.1 High 10,013 84.4 7.0 All 26,486 80.0 7.7
Finally, the report provides information on the relationship between parent satisfaction with the learning environment, home and school relations, and physical environment of their child’s school. Generally, as the overall report card rating of their child’s school increased, so did parental satisfaction with the school’s learning environment, home and school relations, and physical environment of their child’s school. The only exception was parent satisfaction in Unsatisfactory high schools where the percentage of parents satisfied with the learning environment, home and school relations, and physical environment of their child’s school exceeded that of parents whose child attend a high school with a Below Average rating. However, the number of survey responses at high schools with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory was considerably fewer than at any other school level.
4
Administration of the 2018 Parent Survey
The design and sampling methodology for the parent survey were established in 2001. The EOC contracted with the Institute of Families in Society at the University of South Carolina to design the survey and to recommend a medium for distributing the survey. To maintain complete anonymity and to maximize the return rate, the Institute recommended that the survey be mailed to a sample of parents along with a postage paid, return envelope. While the sampling methodology proposed by the Institute was implemented, the parent survey has never been mailed to parents due to budgetary restrictions. Instead, schools have been given the responsibility for distributing and collecting the forms. Generally, schools send the surveys home with students. Some schools have held parent meetings or special meetings at school during which the surveys were distributed.
Rather than surveying all parents of public school students, the parents of students in the highest grade at all elementary, middle and high schools are surveyed. In high schools and career centers, parents of all 11th graders are surveyed. In schools with a grade configuration that spans multiple levels, parents of children in multiple grades are surveyed. For example, in a school with a grade span of grades 6 through 10, parents of children in grades 8 and 10 are surveyed. For parents in schools with a grade span of K-12, parents of children in grades 5, 8 and 11 are surveyed. Parents in schools containing grades 2 or lower, which include primary schools, child development schools and schools with configurations like K, K-1, and K-2 are not surveyed. The parent survey is typically administered during the second semester of each school year.
A copy of the 2018 survey is in the Appendix A. The 2018 administration of the parent survey occurred over the following time period and involved the following actions.
February 16, 2018 All schools received survey forms. March 21, 2018 Date for parent survey forms returned to school. March 28, 2018 Last day for schools to mail completed forms to contractor. Source: SC Department of Education
A school survey coordinator, a staff person designated by the school principal, distributed and collected the parent surveys at each school according to instructions provided by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE). According to SCDE, an independent contractor hired by the agency to mail to each school the following: An administrative envelope containing; 1. A letter to the principal from the Education Oversight Committee (EOC), 2. Two sets of instructions for administering the surveys, 3. A page of shipping instructions, and 4. One pre-addressed, bar-coded UPS shipping label (used to return completed surveys to contractor, freight prepaid). Parent survey envelopes. Each envelope contains a letter from the State Superintendent of Education and a parent survey form. Student survey forms.1
The name of each school was printed on the survey forms to assist parents who were completing surveys for multiple schools. Schools were also advised to “distribute the parent surveys as soon
1 “Administration of the 2018 Report Card Surveys,” South Carolina Department of Education.
5
as possible” after delivery. The cost of printing, shipping, processing and scanning the parent surveys was $75,978.2
Each school’s designated survey coordinator then distributed envelopes containing the parent survey and letter from the state Superintendent of Education to each classroom teacher within the designated grade being surveyed. Teachers gave each student an envelope and instructions to take the envelope home for their parents to complete and then return the completed survey to school in the sealed envelope. The envelopes were designed to maintain the confidentiality and anonymity of all parents. Parents were given the option of mailing the completed survey directly to SCDE with parents incurring the cost of the mailing or of returning the survey to the school. The school survey coordinator was expressly advised that mailing of the envelopes directly to the parents was allowed with all costs to be borne by the school. Information did not exist to document if any schools mailed the parent surveys to parents.
Upon receiving the completed parent surveys, the school survey coordinator then mailed the forms to the independent contractor for scanning and preparation of the data files. Individual school results were tabulated by SCDE. For each school, SCDE aggregated the responses to all survey questions and provided the data files to the district office.
The 2018 parent survey was unchanged from the 2017 survey; it contained a total of 61 questions. Forty-seven questions were designed to elicit information on parental perceptions and parental involvement patterns. For the first twenty-three questions, parents were asked to respond to individual statements using one of the following responses: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree or Don’t Know. These twenty-one questions focused on three key components: learning environment, home and school relations, and the physical and social environment of their child’s school. These components and individual activities reflect the framework devised by Dr. Joyce Epstein of the National Network of Partnership Schools.
Parents were asked five questions about their participation in various parental involvement activities both in and outside of the school. Parents were also asked whether each of a list of seven items were potential barriers to their involvement in their child’s education. Three items focused on parent perceptions of their child’s Individual Graduation Plan (IGP); these items asked whether they thought the IGP conference was beneficial, whether the school counselor discussed their child’s academic progress and career goals, and whether parents would recommend participation in the process to other parents/guardians. Parents were also asked whether they believed their child was bullied at school in the previous year, where the bullying occurred, and whether the bullying was verbal or physical. Finally, parents were asked to provide specific information about themselves, their child, and their household. Parents were asked four questions about their child: their child’s grade in school, gender, race/ethnicity, and grades on his or her last report card. Four questions sought information about the parent: his or her gender, race/ethnicity, highest level of education and total yearly household income.
2 Communication from South Carolina Department of Education to EOC staff.
6
Respondents of the 2018 Parent Survey
As reflected in Table 1, the total number of parent surveys returned in 2018 was 63,913, which was 8,069 (14.4 percent) more than the number returned in the prior year. However, a substantially larger percentage of the returned surveys for 2018 were judged to be incomplete. For this report a response was judged to be incomplete if it was missing information for five specific questions: 1) the overall satisfaction of the school’s learning environment; 2) the overall satisfaction of the school’s social and physical environment; 3) the overall rating of the school’s home and school relations; 4) the grade level of the student; and 5) the gender of the responding parent. The percentage of records that were incomplete increased dramatically from 2017 (2.4 percent) to 2018 (8.9 percent).
Considering the surveys with complete information, there was an increase of 3,740 surveys returned from 2017 to 2018 (6.9 percent). From 2016 to 2018 there has been a trend of increasing responses, reversing a trend of declining response from 2011 to 2016, even when considering only complete surveys. A comparable analysis was not conducted in the prior years.
Table 1 Total Number of Parent Surveys Returned Year Surveys Surveys with Surveys with Complete Information Returned Missing Information
2018 63,913 5,679 (8.9 percent) 58,234
2017 55,844 1,350 (2.4 percent) 54,494
2016 55,221
2015 62,192
2014 59,293
2013 66,787
2012 69,581
2011 73,755
Using two methods of determining response rates and the total number of parent surveys returned, two response rates were calculated in Table 2. The first method compares the number of responses to the number of surveys distributed, and the second method compares the number of responses to the number of students in grades 5, 8, and 11 (grades 5 and 8 are typically the highest grades in elementary and middle school, and grade 11 is the high school grade targeted for administration of the parent survey). From these separate calculations, it appears that between 32.8 and 39.1 percent of all eligible parents surveyed responded to the 2018 parent survey, and between 29.9 and 35.6 percent of parent surveys were complete, both of which are increases from the 2017 estimates using the same two methodologies.
7
Table 2 Determining the Response Rate Sample Surveys Returned Surveys Completed
Size Number Percent Number Percent Method 1: Surveys Distributed 194,600 32.8% 29.9% 63,913 58,234 Method 2: ADM3of grades 5, 8 and 11 163,354 39.1% 35.6%
Parents completing the survey were asked seven questions about their child:
1. What grade is your child in? (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th or 11th) 2. What is your child’s gender? 3. What is your child’s race/ethnicity? 4. What grades did your child receive on his/her last report card? 5. Has your child been bullied at school this year? 6. If yes, was your child bullied: In Classroom Other location at school At sporting events On-line/texting during school On the bus After school 7. If yes, was you child bullied Physically Verbally Both
The following definition of bullying was provided on the 2017 and 2018 surveys: Bullying means a gesture, electronic communication, or written, verbal, physical, or sexual act that is reasonably perceived to have the effect of harming a student physically or emotionally or damaging a student’s property or placing a student in reasonable fear of personal harm or property damage or insulting or demeaning a student.
Parents were also asked four questions about themselves and their family: 1. What is your gender? 2. What is your race/ethnic group? 3. What is the highest level of education you have completed? Attended elementary/high school Completed high school/GED Earned associate degree Attended college/training program Earned college degree Postgraduate study and/or degree 4. What is your family’s total yearly household income? Less than $15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $54,000 $55,000 - $75,000 More than $75,000
3 https://ed.sc.gov/finance/financial-services/student-data/membership-counts/
8
Responses to these questions revealed the following about the parents who completed the 2018 parent survey (Table 3).
Table 3 Respondents to the 2018 Parent Survey (n=58,234)
Parent Gender Male 15.3% Female 84.7%
Parent Race African-American 27.4% Caucasian/white 59.2% Hispanic 8.2% All Other 5.2%
Parent Education Attended elementary/high school 9.5% Completed high school/GED 20.2% Earned Associate Degree 11.2% Attended college/training program 19.3% Earned college degree 24.0% Postgraduate study/and/or degree 15.8%
Household Income Less than $15,000 10.6% $15,000 - $24,999 11.5% $25,000 - $34,999 12.6% $35,000 - $54,999 15.7% $55,000 - $75,000 14.2% More than $75,000 35.5%
Their Child Enrolled in: Their Child’s Gender: Grades 3-5 46.7% Male 44.9% Grades 6-8 36.7% Female 55.1% Grades 9-11 16.6%
Their Child’s Ethnicity: African-American 28.1% Caucasian/White 57.0% Hispanic 8.3% All Other 6.6%
Their Child’s Grades: All or mostly A’s and B’s 71.3% All or mostly B’s and C’s 20.6% All or mostly C’s and D’s 6.9% All or mostly D’s and F’s 1.3% Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
9
As in prior years, the “typical” parent responding to the survey was a white female having attended or graduated from college. Over 65 percent of the respondents who answered the question about income reported earning over $35,000. There were no noticeable differences between two categories of respondents’ education from 2017 to 2018 with less than 1 percent differences in each category from 2017 to 2018; similarly, there were small difference (less than 1.5 percent) in the percentages of parents reporting each income level from 2017 to 2018.
To determine if the survey responses were representative of elementary, middle and high school parents, the following analysis was done. First, 50,889 parents who returned the 2018 survey indicated that their child was in 5th, 8th, or 11th grade. Defining grade 5 as elementary schools, grade 8 as middle school and grade 11, high school, approximately 47 percent of parents who completed the survey were elementary school parents, 35 percent middle school, and 18 percent high school (Table 4). As compared to the prior year, the percentage of surveys reflecting the perceptions of elementary school parents increased by 2 percent, middle school parents decreased by 2 percent, and the percentage of parents of high school students remained the same.
The representativeness of the 2018 parent surveys returned of the population of students was investigated by comparing the grade level and ethnicity of students enrolled in the 2017-18 academic year to the grade level and ethnicity of students as reported by parents in the 2018 parent survey. Considering only students in grades 5, 8, and 11, 47 percent of the parent surveys indicated their child was enrolled in grade 5, yet according to the 135-day Average Daily Membership (ADM) enrollment, only 37 percent of students are in grade 5. The percentage of parents who reported their child was enrolled in grade 8 is 1 percent higher than the percentage of student enrolled in grade 8 according to the ADM. The percentage of parents who reported their child was enrolled in grade 11 (18 percent) is 12 percent less than the percentage of students enrolled in grade 11 from the ADM (30 percent). As in previous years, elementary school students are over-represented in the parent surveys returned and high school students are under- represented in these data.
Table 4 Parental Respondents by Child’s Grade Grade of Surveys % of Surveys from 2017-18 % of ADMs for
Child Returned Grades 5, 8, & 11 135-day ADM Grades 5, 8 & 11 Grade 5 23,877 47% 59,820 37% Grade 8 17,934 35% 54,837 34% Grade 11 9,078 18% 48,696 30%
TOTAL 50,899 163,353
When asked about their child’s race or ethnicity, 57.0 percent of the parents responded that their child’s ethnicity was white, 28.1 percent African American and 8.3 percent Hispanic. With respect to the ethnicity of children in the public schools of South Carolina in 2017-18, parents whose children are African American were underrepresented by 5.5 percent, and parents whose children are Hispanic were underrepresented by 1.4 percent in the respondents, while parents whose children are white were overrepresented by 6.4 percent (Table 5).
10
Table 5 Ethnicity of Children 2018 Parent Student Enrollment4 Difference Survey All Public Schools 2017-18 White 57.0% 50.6% 6.4% African American 28.1% 33.6% (5.5%) Hispanic 8.3% 9.7% (1.4%) Other 6.6% 6.1% 0.5% Note: “Other” includes American Indian/Alaskan, Asian, Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander and Two or more races.
With respect to educational attainment, 39.8 percent of parents who responded to the survey in 2018 had earned a bachelor or postgraduate degree. For comparison purposes, the United States Census Bureau reported that from 2013-2017, 27.0 percent of persons 25 years old and over in South Carolina had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher5.
Regarding the annual household income of the respondents, in 2018 65.3 percent of the parents who completed the survey reported having an annual household income of $35,000 or more. For comparison purposes, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income in South Carolina from 2013-2017 was $48,7816.
Conclusions
• A total of 63,913 parent surveys were completed and returned in 2018, which was 8,069 (14.4 percent) more than the number returned in the prior year. • The percentage of incomplete surveys increased from 2.4 percent in 2017 to 8.9 percent in 2018. • A total of 58,234 parent surveys were completed and returned in 2018, which was 3,740 (6.9 percent) more than the number of completed surveys in 2017 (54,494). • Using two methods of calculating a response rate, one method that underestimated and one that overestimated the total number of parents eligible to take the survey, the response rate to the 2018 parent survey was between 33 and 39 percent • The response rate for completed surveys was between 30 to 36 percent. • An analysis of the respondents to the 2018 parent survey found that the survey responses typically overrepresented the perceptions of parents in elementary schools and underrepresented the perceptions of parents who have children in high school. • Respondents typically obtained higher educational achievements and had greater median household incomes than the general population of South Carolina. • White respondents are over-represented by 6.4%, while African-American respondents are under-represented by 5.5%, and Hispanic respondents are under-represented by 1.4%.
4 South Carolina Department of Education, “Active Student Headcounts”
5 U.S. Census Bureau, “State and County Quick Facts”
6 Ibid.
11
12
Results of the 2018 Parent Survey
The parent survey was designed to determine: (1) parent perceptions or satisfaction with their child’s public school and (2) parental involvement efforts in public schools. The following is an analysis that documents the actual parent responses to questions focusing on parental satisfaction and parental involvement.
Parent Perceptions of Their Child’s School
The information below summarizes the results of the 2018 parent survey. At the school level, responses to these questions can reveal the strengths and weaknesses of parental involvement initiatives at the individual school site. Statewide, the data provide policymakers information on the overall effectiveness of policies and programs in promoting parental involvement. The following analysis focuses on parent perceptions or satisfaction with the learning environment, home and school relations, and the social and physical environment of their children’s schools. In analyzing responses, “significant change” is defined as a change of three percent or more in satisfaction.
A. Learning Environment Five questions in the parent survey ask parents to reflect upon the learning environment of their child’s school. Questions 1 through 4 are designed to elicit parental agreement with specific aspects of the learning environment at their child’s school, focusing on homework, expectations, and academic assistance. Question 5 offers parents the opportunity to report on their overall satisfaction with the learning environment at their child’s school. For each school with a sufficient number or parent survey responses, the aggregate parental responses to question 5 are included on the annual school report card.
Table 6 summarizes the total responses to these five questions for all parents who completed the 2018 parent survey. Overall, 87.0 percent of parents responded that they were satisfied with the learning environment of their child’s school, and slightly more than 10 percent of parents expressed dissatisfaction with the school learning environment. Parents view school expectations (92.1 percent) and teacher encouragement (90 percent) most favorably.
Table 6 Parent Responses to the 2018 Learning Environment Questions (Percentage of Parents with each Response) Agree or Disagree or Don’t Question Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Know 1. My child's teachers give homework 88.1 9.5 2.4 that helps my child learn. 2. My child's school has high 92.1 6.0 1.9 expectations for student learning. 3. My child's teachers encourage my 92.0 5.1 2.9 child to learn. 4. My child's teachers provide extra help 82.9 10.7 6.4 when my child needs it. 5. I am satisfied with the learning 87.0 11.2 1.8 environment at my child's school.
13
Table 7 compares the percentage of parents who responded that they agreed or strongly agreed to questions about the school learning environment each year from 2013 through 2018. The pattern over time is high parental satisfaction with the learning environment, with the highest levels of parental satisfaction for the in 2015, and a small decline in overall satisfaction each year; the total decline of 0.6 percent from 2015 to 2018 should not be over-interpreted.
Table 7 Percentage of Parents Who Agree or Strongly Agree they are Satisfied with each Learning Environment Question: 2014 through 2018 Learning Environment Questions 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 1. My child's teachers give homework that 89.2 89.2 88.9 helps my child learn. 88.1 88.3 2. My child's school has high expectations for 92.3 92.2 91.6 student learning. 92.1 92.0 3. My child's teachers encourage my child to 92.0 91.8 91.2 learn. 92.0 91.9 4. My child's teachers provide extra help when my child needs it. 82.9 83.1 83.4 82.8 81.9 5. I am satisfied with the learning 87.0 87.5 87.6 86.7 environment at my child's school. 87.1
Parents of elementary school students view the learning environment of the school more favorably (89.6 percent) than do parents of either middle (84.5 percent) or high school (84.6 percent) students (Table 8). The difference between the parent responses for parents of middle and high school students are not large enough to suggest these groups differ in their perceptions of their child’s school. Parents of elementary school students do appear to view the learning environment of their child’s school most favorably.
Table 8 I am Satisfied With the Learning Environment at My Child’s School. (Percentage of Parents by School Type: Elementary, Middle or High School) School Number of Agree or Disagree or Type Responses Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Elementary 30,071 89.6 9.1
Middle 20,284 84.5 13.5
High 10,653 84.6 13.1
All Parents 57,204 87.0 11.2
B. Home and School Relations
The next eleven questions on the parent survey reflect parent perceptions of home and school relations by focusing on the relationship between the parent and their child’s teacher and between the parent and the school. Question 11 offers parents the opportunity to report on their overall satisfaction with home and school relations at their child’s school. For each school with a sufficient
14
number of parent responses, the aggregate parental responses to question 11 are included on the annual school report card.
Table 9 summarizes the total responses to these eleven questions for all parents who completed the 2018 parent survey.
Table 9 Parent Responses to the 2018 Home and School Relations Questions (Percentage of Parents with each Response) Agree or Disagree or Don’t Home and School Relations Questions Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Know 1. My child’s teachers contact me to say good 59.0 38.7 2.3 things about my child 2. My child’s teachers tell me how I can help 63.8 33.5 2.7 my child learn. 3. My child's teachers invite me to visit my 49.6 44.9 5.5 child's classrooms during the school day. 4. My child's school returns my phone calls or 81.8 13.1 5.1 e-mails promptly. 5. My child's school includes me in decision- 71.3 22.9 5.8 making. 6. My child's school gives me information about what my child should be learning in 72.5 21.7 5.8 school. 7. My child's school considers changes based 56.5 21.8 21.7 on what parents say. 8. My child's school schedules activities at 80.2 15.7 4.1 times that I can attend. 9. My child's school treats all students fairly. 72.3 15.5 12.2 10. My principal at my child's school is 83.1 8.7 8.2 available and welcoming. 11. I am satisfied with home and school 73.7 13.4 12.9 relations at my child’s school.
Overall, 73.7 percent of parents were satisfied with home and school relations at their child’s school, which is 0.1 percent lower than in 2017. An examination of questions 1 through 10, which ask parents more specific questions about their personal experiences at their child’s school, reveals the following, which is consistent with results of the 2017 survey:
• Approximately three-fourths of parents indicated that they were satisfied with the home and school relations at their child’s school.
• More than 80 percent of parents agreed that the principal at their child’s school was available and welcoming.
• Slightly more than 80 percent of the parents agreed that their child’s school returned phone calls or e-mails promptly and scheduled activities at times that parents could attend.
• Approximately four out of ten parents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their child’s teachers contacted them to say good things about their child or invited the parents to visit the classroom during the school day.
15
• Approximately one-third of the parents disagreed that their child’s teachers told them how to help their child learn.
• Slightly less than one-fourth of parents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their child’s school included parents in decision-making or considered changes based on parental input.
• Approximately one in four parents did not believe or did not know if students were treated fairly at their child’s school.
As documented in Table 10, the percentage of parents who indicated they were satisfied with home and school relations in 2018 was only 0.1 percent lower than in 2017. The percentage of parents who indicated dissatisfaction with home and school relations decreased from 2017 through 2018 but is only 0.3 lower than the highest value in the past 5 years (74.0 in 2015).
Table 10 Percentage of Parents Who Agree or Strongly Agree they are Satisfied with Home and School Relations: 2014 through 2018 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Agree or Strongly Agree 73.7 73.8 74.0 73.1 71.7 Disagree or Strongly Disagree 13.4 13.7 13.9 14.4 14.6 Don’t Know 12.9 12.5 12.1 12.5 13.7
The pattern of parental satisfaction with home and school relations by school type is similar to the pattern of parental satisfaction with the learning environment (Table 11). The percentages of parents of students in middle school and high school who view the home and school relations favorably (69.4 and 69.9 percent, respectively), are nearly the same. Both, however, are lower than the percentage of parents of students in elementary school who view home and school relations favorably (78.1 percent).
Table 11 I am Satisfied with Home and School Relations at My Child’s School. (Percentage of Parents by School Type: Elementary, Middle or High School) Number of Agree or Disagree or School Type Responses Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Elementary 29,775 78.1 10.1
Middle 20,147 69.4 16.9
High 10,569 69.9 16.4
All Students 56,723 73.7 13.4
16
C. Social and Physical Environment
Seven questions on the parent survey focus on the social and physical environment of schools. These questions are designed to elicit parent perceptions of the cleanliness, safety, and student behavior at their child’s school. Questions 5 and 6 specifically address teacher and school response to bullying. Question 7 asks parents to report on their overall satisfaction with the social and physical environment of their child’s schools. For each school with a sufficient number of parent responses, the aggregate parental responses to question 7 are included on the annual school report card.
Table 12 summarizes the total responses to these seven questions for all parents who completed the 2018 parent survey. Overall, 83.9 percent of parents view the social and physical environment of their child’s school favorably. Approximately nine in ten parents agreed or strongly agreed that their child’s school was kept neat and clean and that their child felt safe at school. Approximately 85 percent of parents indicated that their child’s teachers care about their child as an individual. Parents most strongly disagree that students at their child’s school are well-behaved (23.5 percent). Less than seven of ten parents thought that teachers and school staff prevent or stop bullying, and that the school has an anti-bullying program.
Table 12 Parent Responses to the 2018 Social and Physical Environment Questions (Percentage of Parents with each Response) Agree or Disagree or Social and Physical Environment Strongly Strongly Don’t Know Questions Agree Disagree 1. My child's school is kept neat and clean. 89.9 6.9 3.2 2. My child’s teachers care about my child as an 85.0 8.0 7.0 individual. 3. Students at my child's school are well 62.9 23.5 13.6 behaved. 4. My child feels safe at school. 85.1 12.1 2.8 5. My child’s teachers and school staff prevent 68.0 15.9 16.1 or stop bullying at school. 6. My child’s school has an anti-bullying 61.1 12.4 26.5 program to prevent or deal with bullying. 7. I am satisfied with the social and physical 83.9 12.3 3.8 environment at my child’s school.
Table 13 presents the 2018 results of the South Carolina parent survey with the results of parent surveys administered since 2014. In 2016 there was a substantial decline (12.7 percent) in the parents’ perceptions of whether their child’s teachers care about their child as an individual. This appears to have been a one-year anomaly as the percentage has rebounded for both 2017 and 2018. Parents’ overall satisfaction with the social and physical environment of their child’s school declined to the lowest level in five years; however, the 2018 satisfaction level is only 1.4 percent below the highest value in this time period. Consequently, these differences are not large enough to call for concern.
Sixty-eight (68) percent of parents believe that teachers and school staff prevent or stop bullying at school; however, only 61.1 percent of parents believe that their child’s school has an anti-
17
bullying program. Parents consistently are least satisfied with the behavior of the students at their child’s school, with between 60 and 65 percent satisfied over the past 5 years.
Table 13 Percentage of Parents Who Agree or Strongly Agree they are Satisfied with each Social and Physical Environment Question: 2013 through 2018 Social and Physical Environment Questions 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 1. My child's school is kept neat and clean. 89.9 89.9 90.3 90.5 90.6 2. My child’s teachers care about my child as an 85.0 individual. 84.9 71.9 84.6 83.8 3. Students at my child's school are well behaved. 62.9 64.6 63.7 64.9 64.8 4. My child feels safe at school. 85.1 89.0 89.4 89.1 91.2 5. My child’s teachers and school staff prevent or stop 68.0 71.3 bullying at school. 6. My child’s school has an anti-bullying program to 61.1 63.1 prevent or deal with bullying. 7. I am satisfied with the social and physical 83.9 85.1 85.2 85.3 84.4 environment at my child’s school.
Data presented in Table 14 demonstrate that the differences in parental satisfaction in the social and physical environment of their child’s school by school type are consistent with results for both the learning environment and home and school relations. The percentage of parents of elementary school students express more satisfaction (88.4 percent) than either the parents of middle school students (80.0 percent) or high school students (78.0 percent). Parents of elementary school students appear to be more satisfied with the social and physical environment of their child’s school then parents in either middle or high school; parents in middle and high school do not appear to differ substantially in their perceptions of the social and physical environment of their child’s school.
Table 14 I am Satisfied with the Social and Physical Environment at My Child’s School. (Percentage of Parents by School Type: Elementary, Middle or High School) Number of Agree or Strongly Disagree or Type Responses Agree Strongly Disagree
Elementary 29,963 88.4 8.8
Middle 20,282 80.0 15.5
High 10,618 78.0 16.4
All Students 57,098 83.9 12.3
18
Parental Involvement
According to the National Network of Partnership Schools, founded and directed by Dr. Joyce Epstein at Johns Hopkins University, there are six types of successful partnerships between the school, family and community:7
• Type 1. Parenting – Assist families with parenting skills and setting home conditions to support children as students. Also, assist schools to better understand families.
• Type 2. Communicating – Conduct effective communications from school-to-home and home-to-school about school programs and student progress.
• Type 3. Volunteering – Organize volunteers and audiences to support the school and students. Provide volunteer opportunities in various locations and at various times.
• Type 4. Learning at Home – Involve families with their children on homework and other curriculum-related activities and decisions.
• Type 5. Decision Making – Include families as participants in school decisions, and develop parent leaders and representatives.
• Type 6. Collaborating with the family – Coordinate resources and services from the community for families, students, and the school, and provide services to the community.
In addition to determining parent satisfaction with their child’s school, the annual survey of parents in South Carolina includes questions designed to elicit information on the level of parental involvement in schools. The questions focus on the first five types of parental involvement. It should be reiterated that parents self-report their involvement.
First, parents were asked to specifically respond to eight questions relating to their involvement in their child’s school. These questions focus on the following types of parental involvement: parenting, volunteering and decision making. Parents were asked specifically to respond to these eight questions in one of four ways:
• I do this. • I don’t do this but would like to. • I don’t do this and I don’t care to. • The school does not offer this activity/event.
The responses are reflected in Table 15 with the middle column highlighting the percentage of parents who expressed an interest in becoming involved in these school activities. These parents want to be involved but either have personal barriers preventing their involvement or face obstacles at the school level. At the school level, parents responding “I don’t do this but would like to” are the parents for whom school initiatives to improve parental involvement should be focused.
7 Epstein, et. al. 2002. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action, Second Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
19
Table 15 Percent of Parents Providing Each Response to Parental Involvement Questions Regarding Activities at the School I don’t but I don’t and Parental Involvement Activity/event I do this would like don’t care Questions not offered to to Attend Open Houses or parent- 81.1 13.9 4.1 0.9 teacher conferences Attend student programs or 82.2 13.5 3.4 0.9 performances Volunteer for the school 35.5 35.3 26.0 3.2
Go on trip with my child’s school 37.1 40.3 18.0 4.6 Participate in School Improvement 13.6 42.4 39.0 5.0 Council Meetings Participate in Parent-teacher 27.0 34.2 35.8 3.0 Student Organizations Participate in school committees 16.1 36.3 40.4 7.2
Attend parent workshops 25.9 39.1 21.0 14.1
Based on the responses in Table 15 and the six types of involvement, there are significant opportunities for improving parental involvement in South Carolina’s public schools.
• Decision-Making – Substantially fewer parents report being involved in the School Improvement Council and school committees than in any other activity. Slightly more than one-fourth of parents reported participating in Parent-Teacher-Student Organizations.
• Decision making, including parents and families in school decisions, and developing parent leaders and representatives are areas for growth where parents want to be involved in these decision-making organizations.
• Volunteering – Approximately 35 percent of the parents responded that they volunteered while 35 percent wanted to volunteer. Similarly, 37 percent of parents indicated they go on trips with their child’s school, and an additional 40 percent would like to be able to go on trips.
• Parenting – More than four in five parents attended open houses, parent-teacher conferences or student programs, all activities that support their children. Approximately one-fourth reported attending parent workshops while 14 percent contend that such workshops were not provided at their child’s school.
Parents were asked five questions about their involvement with their child’s learning, both at the school site and at home. Parents could respond in one of three ways: • I do this • I don’t do this but would like to • I don’t do this and I don’t care to
Table 16 summarizes parental responses to these five questions.
20
Table 16 Percent of Parents Providing Each Response to Parental Involvement Questions Regarding Their Child’s Learning I don’t but I don’t and I do this would like to don’t care to Visit my child’s classroom during the 27.1 51.5 21.3 school day Contact my child’s teachers about my 76.5 17.3 6.2 child’s school work. Limit the amount of time my child watches TV, plays video games, surfs 83.9 9.4 6.7 the Internet Make sure my child does his/her 95.0 3.3 1.7 homework Help my child with homework when 93.7 4.7 1.6 he/she needs it
Clearly, parents overwhelmingly report being involved in activities and decisions to support their child’s learning. Over 93 percent of parents reported helping their child with his or her homework while 84 percent report limiting television and other distractions at home. Over one-fourth of parents responded that they visited their child’s classroom during the day while many more parents (52 percent) would like to become involved in this way. These responses are similar to parent responses in prior years.
There are obstacles that impede parental involvement in schools. The annual parent survey asks parents to respond “true” or “false” to seven questions on factors that impact their involvement. The results from 2014 through 2018 are included in Table 17. Parental responses to these questions have been remarkably consistent over time, the difference between the highest and lowest percentages from 2014 to 2018 for any specific indicator are less than 3 percent. Work schedule (57 percent) is the greatest impediment, followed by lack of information from the school (24 percent); all other impediments are reported by less than 16 percent of parents.
Table 17 Percentage of Parents Experiencing Each Impediment to Involvement in Schools 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Lack of transportation reduces my involvement 10.1 10.3 10.2 10.8 12.2 Family health problems reduce my involvement. 14.0 14.7 14.7 14.9 15.5 Lack of available care for my children or other 14.6 14.6 14.1 14.5 14.8 family members reduces my involvement. My work schedule makes it hard for me to be 57.0 57.4 57.2 56.2 57.1 involved. The school does not encourage my involvement. 15.5 15.8 15.8 16.2 17.5 Information about how to be involved either 24.3 23.8 23.9 24.3 25.5 comes too late or not at all. I don't feel like it is appreciated when I try to be 10.0 10.6 10.7 10.8 11.9 involved.
21
Parents were also asked several questions about their child's school and its efforts at increasing parental involvement. Across these questions and across time, two-thirds or more of parents consistently rated the efforts of their child’s school at parental involvement efforts as good or very good (Table 18). Parents view the overall friendliness of the school most favorably. Parents view their child’s school’s efforts at providing information to them more favorably than they view the school’s efforts at getting information from parents. This is demonstrated most clearly as only 64 percent of parents view their child’s school’s interest in parents’ ideas and opinions favorably, while 76 percent of parents view the school’s efforts at giving important information to parents favorably. Again, these results are consistent over time.
Table 18 Percent of Parents Providing Each Response to Parental Involvement Questions Regarding School Effort: 2015-2018 Very Good or Bad or Very Bad Okay Good Question: 2018 2017 2016 2018 2017 2016 2018 2017 2016 School's overall friendliness. 82.0 81.7 81.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 15.8 16.1 15.9 School's interest in parents’ 64.1 64.5 64.1 7.2 7.1 7.4 28.7 28.4 28.5 ideas and opinions. School's effort to get important 71.6 72.0 71.7 6.2 6.2 6.2 22.2 21.8 22.0 information from parents. The school's efforts to give important information to 76.4 76.3 76.2 5.5 5.5 5.6 18.1 18.3 18.1 parents.
22
Bullying
Three questions on bullying were added to the parent survey in 2015 and continue to be included in the annual survey. The first asked question the parent if their child had been bullied at school. If a parent responded yes to the first question, then they were asked to respond to two additional questions. The second question asked parents where their child was bullied, with the following options provided:
In classroom Other location at school At sporting events On-line/texting during school On the bus After school
The final question asked whether their child was bullied physically, verbally, or both. As documented in Table 19, 72 percent of parents indicated that their child was not bullied at school, while 20.7 percent of parents indicated that their child was bullied at school, and 7.2 percent or parents were not sure whether their child was bullied at school. Approximately 13 percent of parents indicated their child was bullied verbally, and 1 percent of parents indicated that their child was bullied physically. Seven percent of parents indicated their child was bullied both physically and verbally.
The percentage of parents who indicated their child was bullied has been consistent over the three years this data has been collected, ranging from 19.4 percent to 20.7 percent.
Table 19 Percentage of Parents Reporting Their Child was Bullied Since 2015 2018 2017 2016 2015 20.7 19.9 19.4 19.8
Table 20 presents a summary of the locations in which parents believe that their children were bullied, ordered by frequency of occurrence. Classrooms were the location parents reported their child was bullied in most frequently (13.3 percent), followed by some other location at school (10.0 percent). Although only 5.2 percent of parents indicated that their child was bullied on the bus, this should not be interpreted as the percentage of bus riding children who were bullied, because we do not know whether all children of responding parents rode the bus. The percentage of parents who reported their child was bullied at a sporting event was the smallest (0.9 percent). Only 2.4 percent of parents reported their child was bullied online.
23
Table 20 Percent of Parents Indicating Their Child was Bullied by Location Location of Bullying Number Percent In classroom 7,756 13.3 Other location at school 5,819 10.0 On the bus 3,033 5.2 After school 1,675 2.9 On-line/texting during school 1,380 2.4 At a sporting event 501 0.9
Individual students may have been bullied in more than one of these locations. Table 21 presents a summary of the number of different locations where parents reported that their child had been bullied. Most parents who indicated their child was bullied also indicated that bullying occurred in only one location.
Table 21 Number of Locations in Which Parents Reported Their Child Being Bullied Number of Percentage of Number of Locations Parents Percent 0 46,042 79.1 1 6,757 11.6 2 3,627 6.2 3 1,277 2.2 4 382 0.7 5 100 0.2 6 49 0.1
Referring back to parental responses in Table 13 regarding bullying:
• 68.0% of parents believe that their child’s teachers and schools staff prevent or stop bullying at school; and • 61.1% of parents believe that their child’s school has an anti-bullying program to prevent or deal with bullying.
24
Individualized Graduation Plans (IGPs)
Three questions in the parent survey ask about the individualized graduation plan (IGP) process. The first asked the parent if they thought the IGP process was beneficial to their child. The second asked if during the IGP conference, the counselor discussed their child’s academic progress and career goals. The third asked if parents recommended other parents/guardians participate in the IGP conference with their children.
The survey described the IGP process as a component of the Education and Economic Development Act of 2005 (EEDA), and specifically asked parents of children in grades 8 and higher to respond the questions. However, 22,369 parents of students in grades 3 through 7 responded to these questions. Recall that parents received surveys based on the grade level of their child. Responses of parents with children in grades 3 through 7 were not summarized because their child was not old enough to have participated in the IGP process, though it is possible that many of these parents have experienced the IGP process with older siblings.
Table 22 presents the results of the IGP questions. Results are fairly consistent across all three questions, with 80 to 85 percent of parents responding favorably to the IGP process. Slightly more than 10 percent of parents indicated that they were unfamiliar with the IGP process, and less than 10 percent of parents indicated dissatisfaction with the IGP process.
Table 22 Parent Responses to the 2018 IGP Conference Questions (Percentage of Parents with each Response) Agree or Disagree or Social and Physical Environment Strongly Strongly Don’t Know Questions Agree Disagree 1. The IGP conference was beneficial to my child as he/she prepares to be promoted to the 80.0 7.7 12.3 next grade level. 2. During the IGP conference, the counselors discussed my child’s academic progress and 80.7 6.1 13.2 his/her career goals. 3. I recommend that all parents/guardians 84.6 4.7 10.7 attend IGP conferences with their children.
The first IGP question was analyzed by school type, as it seems to best address parents’ overall satisfaction with the IGP process. A slightly higher percentage of parents of students in high school report that the IGP process was beneficial to their child, though the difference does not seem large enough to suggest any change in the IGP process by school level. (Table 23)
Table 23 Parents’ Overall Satisfaction with the IGP Process by School Type Number of Agree/ Disagree/ School Type Parents Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Middle (Grade 8) 17,647 77.0 8.1 High 10,013 84.4 7.0 All 26,486 80.0 7.7
25
Parental Satisfaction and Overall School ratings
For the first time since 2014, schools received Report Card ratings in 2018 for the 2017-18 academic school year. While parental satisfaction was not calculated in the overall school rating, the overall satisfaction of parents, students, and teachers with the learning environment, social and physical environment, and home and school relations of the school, was reported on each school’s report card The reported data include the number of surveys returned and the percent of each group satisfied with each of the three summary questions. The following is an analysis of the overall satisfaction level of parents with the learning environment, social and physical environment, and home and school relations of their child’s school and the 2018 overall school rating of their child’s school. Parents were asked to respond to the following three summary questions with Agree, Strongly Agree, Disagree or Strongly Disagree: • I am satisfied with the learning environment at my child's school. • I am satisfied with the social and physical environment at my child’s school. • I am satisfied with home and school relations at my child’s school.
Table 24 presents the minimum number of parents who responded to one of the three summary questions. For all school types, the greatest number of parent responses were associated with schools with an overall rating of Average, with more than 9,000 parent responses for students in elementary school, nearly 7,000 for students in middle school, and more than 2,700 for students in high school. The smallest number of parent responses for each school type is associated with schools with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory. For elementary schools with an Unsatisfactory rating there were 1,701 parent responses, for middle schools with an Unsatisfactory rating there are 1,695 parent responses, and for high schools with an Unsatisfactory rating there were 365 parent responses. Table 24 Number of Parent Responses to Three Summary Questions by Overall 2018 Report Card rating of Their Child’s School Report Card rating Elementary Middle High Excellent 5,663 2,914 2,456 Good 6,724 4,068 2,542 Average 9,709 6,886 2,770 Below Average 4,369 2,848 1,228 Unsatisfactory 1,701 1,695 365
Table 25 presents the percentage of parent responses compared to the total student enrollment in these schools by overall Report Card rating. Although only parents of students in the highest grade of a school receive surveys, these parent responses are used to make inferences to all parents of students in schools. The responses of the sample are intended to reflect the overall views of all parents in a school. For elementary schools the sample responses are used to make inferences to the parents of all students in grades Kindergarten through grade 5, for middle school the inferences are to the parents of students in grades 6 through 8, and for high school the
26
inferences are to the parents of students in grades 9 through 12. The overall percentage of parents responding to the survey compared to the total student enrollment in schools is 7.7 percent. Across all school types and by school type, the trend that appears is that the percentage of parent responses increases as the school’s overall Report Card rating increases. Specifically, across all school types, the percentage of responses increases from 6.8 percent for parents of students in schools with a rating of Unsatisfactory to 8.9 percent for parents of students in schools with a rating of Excellent. Across all school types, the participation rate is highest for middle schools (11.0 percent) and lowest for high schools (4.4 percent). At each report card rating, the participation rate is highest for middle schools and lowest for high schools. The highest participation rate occurs for parents of middle school students in a school with a report card rating of Good (13.2 percent), and the lowest participation rate occurs for parents of high school students in a school with a report card rating of Unsatisfactory (3.1 percent). The participation rate for elementary schools is lower than that for middle schools because elementary schools include more grades. Table 25 Percentage of Parent Responses Compared to Overall Student Population, Organized by School Type and Report Card rating Report Card rating Elementary Middle High All Types Excellent 9.4 12.3 6.0 8.9 Good 8.5 13.2 4.4 8.0 Average 7.6 10.6 4.1 7.4 Below Average 7.6 9.3 3.6 6.9 Unsatisfactory 6.3 9.8 3.1 6.8 All ratings 8.0 11.0 4.4 7.7
Table 26 presents the results for parent satisfaction with the learning environment of their child’s school. For parents of students in an elementary or a middle school, the pattern is that as the Report Card rating improves, the percentage of parents who were satisfied with the learning environment of their school also increased. For elementary schools, nine percent more parents in schools with an Excellent overall rating reported being satisfied with the learning environment in their child’s school than parents in schools with a rating of Unsatisfactory. For middle schools, 12 percent more parents in schools with an Excellent overall rating reported being satisfied with the learning environment of their child’s school than are satisfied in a school with a rating of Unsatisfactory. Thirteen percent more parents of students in a high school with an Excellent overall rating reported being satisfied with the learning environment of their child’s school than were parents in a school with a Below Average rating. Among parents of high school students, parents whose child attended a school with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory expressed higher satisfaction with the learning environment of their child’s school than did parents whose child attended a high school with either a Below Average or Average overall rating. Although the participation rate of parents of students in a high school with an Unsatisfactory rating is the lowest of all parent groups (3.1 percent), the pattern of decreasing participation is consistent with parents of students in elementary or middle schools. Nevertheless,
27
responses from only 365 parents have twice as much sampling error as do responses from parents of students in a high school with a rating of Below Average (1,228 parents).
Table 26 Parents’ Satisfaction with the Learning Environment by Overall Report Card rating: Percentage of Parents who Agreed or Strong Agreed Report Card rating Elementary Middle High Excellent 93.2 89.1 89.3 Good 91.5 86.5 85.5 Average 89.2 84.8 82.2 Below Average 86.3 78.1 76.3 Unsatisfactory 84.4 77.3 83.7
Table 27 presents results for parent satisfaction with the home and school relations of their child’s school. For parents of students in an elementary or a middle school, the pattern continues; as overall Report Card ratings improve, the percentage of parents who were satisfied increased. For elementary schools, seven percent more parents of students in schools with an Excellent overall rating were satisfied with home and school relations than were parents in schools with an Unsatisfactory overall rating. For middle schools, 13 percent more parents of students in schools with an Excellent overall rating are satisfied than are satisfied in a school with an Unsatisfactory rating. Among high schools, parents of students with an Unsatisfactory overall rating appear to be most satisfied with the home and school relations. The pattern of higher percentages of parents expressing satisfaction with an improved report card rating was present for all other report card ratings in high school, with a 9.5 percent difference between parents of students in schools with an Excellent overall rating and parents of students in schools with a Below Average overall rating.
Table 27 Parents’ Satisfaction with Home and School Relations by Overall Report Card rating: Percentage of Parents who Agreed or Strong Agreed Report Card rating Elementary Middle High Excellent 82.2 73.0 74.0 Good 79.4 71.0 69.6 Average 77.3 69.3 66.1 Below Average 75.4 64.5 63.5 Unsatisfactory 75.2 60.4 77.7
Table 28 presents results for parent satisfaction with the social and physical environment of their child’s school. For parents of students in an elementary or a middle school, the familiar pattern of the percentage of parents who were satisfied increasing with overall Report Card rating was present again. For elementary schools, ten percent more parents of students in schools with an Excellent overall rating reported being satisfied with the social and physical environment of their
28
child’s school than parents of students in a school with an Unsatisfactory overall rating. For middle schools, 13 percent more parents of students in schools with an Excellent overall rating report being satisfied than are satisfied in a school with an Unsatisfactory rating. For parents of students in high school, almost 18 percent more parents of students in a school with an Excellent rating are satisfied with the social and physical environment of their child’s school than are satisfied in a school with an overall rating of Below Average. Again, the percentage of parents of a high school student in a school with an overall rating of Unsatisfactory does not follow the trend present for elementary and middle schools.
Table 28 Parents’ Satisfaction with Social and Physical Environment by Overall Report Card rating: Percentage of Parents who Agreed or Strongly Agreed Report Card rating Elementary Middle High Excellent 92.9 85.2 85.5 Good 90.9 82.2 77.6 Average 88.0 79.9 74.9 Below Average 84.9 73.2 67.6 Unsatisfactory 82.9 72.5 73.7
Conclusions
• In 2018, parental satisfaction in all areas assessed by the survey - Learning Environment (87.0 percent), Home and School Relations (73.7 percent), and the Social and Physical Environment (83.9 percent) - is similar to the levels reported in 2017. • Parents of elementary school students are more satisfied than parents of either middle or high school students, which do not differ from one another in their levels of satisfaction. • Parental work schedule continues to be the largest impediment to parental involvement in school activities, followed by lack of information from the school. • The percentage of parents who reported that their child was bullied at school has ranged from 19.4 to 20.7 over the past three years. • Approximately two-thirds of parents believed that the teachers and staff in their child’s school intervened to prevent bullying or that the school had an anti-bullying plan. • An overall trend appears to be present between parental satisfaction with the school characteristics of learning environment, home and school relations, and social and physical environment– as the overall report card rating of their child’s school increases, so does parental satisfaction.
29
30
APPENDIX The 2018 Parent Survey
31
32
The SC Education Oversight Committee is an independent, non-partisan group made up of 18 educators, business persons, and elected leaders. Created in 1998, the committee is dedicated to reporting facts, measuring change, and promoting progress within South Carolina’s education system.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions, please contact the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) staff for additional information. The phone number is 803.734.6148. Also, please visit the EOC website at www.eoc.sc.gov for additional resources.
The Education Oversight Committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or handicap in its practices relating to employment or establishment and administration of its programs and initiatives. Inquiries regarding employment, programs and initiatives of the Committee should be directed to the Executive Director 803.734.6148.
EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: Public Awareness Subcommittee
DATE: June 10, 2019
ACTION ITEM: 2019-2020 Communications/Public Awareness Plan
PURPOSE/AUTHORITY Article 17 of the EAA states “an ongoing public information campaign must be established to apprise the public of the status of the public schools and the importance of high standards for academic performance for the public school students of South Carolina” (Section 59-18-1700(A)). The EOC has the authority to “plan and oversee the development of a campaign, including public service announcements for the media and other such avenues as deemed appropriate for informing the public.”
The directive of the law is complementary of the EOC’s mission: to affect the dramatic, results- based and continuous improvement of South Carolina’s educational system by creating a truly collaborative environment of parents, educators, community leaders, and policymakers. The values, which support the mission of the EOC, are:
1. A sole focus on what is best for students; 2. A belief in broad-based inclusion and collaboration; 3. A belief in standards, assessments and publicly known results; 4. The implementation of research and fact-based solutions that improve results; and 5. A passion for immediate, dramatic and continuous improvement that is unaffected by partisan politics.
CRITICAL FACTS EOC staff maintains a thorough communications plan to identify ways to improve how the EOC communicates with, relates to, and influences its various stakeholder groups. The plan is updated at least every two years to support and enhance the overall mission and values of the agency; continuous feedback is welcome and essential.
TIMELINE/REVIEW PROCESS February 12, 2018 Updated Communications Plan approved by EOC May 20, 2019 EOC Public Awareness Subcommittee received updated plan as Information Item.
ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EOC Cost: No fiscal impact beyond current appropriations.
Fund/Source: ACTION REQUEST
For approval For information
ACTION TAKEN
Approved Amended Not Approved Action deferred (explain) Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019
EOC Communications / Public Relations Plan Proposed FY 2019-20 Objectives
Introduction
Article 17 of the EAA states “an ongoing public information campaign must be established to apprise the public of the status of the public schools and the importance of high standards for academic performance for the public school students of South Carolina” (Section 59-18-1700(A)). The EOC has the authority to “plan and oversee the development of a campaign, including public service announcements for the media and other such avenues as deemed appropriate for informing the public.”
The directive of the law is complementary of the EOC’s mission: to affect the dramatic, results-based and continuous improvement of South Carolina’s educational system by creating a truly collaborative environment of parents, educators, community leaders, and policymakers. The values, which support the mission of the EOC, are:
1. A sole focus on what is best for students; 2. A belief in broad-based inclusion and collaboration; 3. A belief in standards, assessments and publicly known results; 4. The implementation of research and fact-based solutions that improve results; and 5. A passion for immediate, dramatic and continuous improvement that is unaffected by partisan politics.
EOC staff maintains a thorough communications plan to identify ways to improve how the EOC communicates with, relates to, and influences its various stakeholder groups. The plan is updated at least every two years to support and enhance the overall mission and values of the agency; continuous feedback is welcome and essential.
Proposed FY 2019-20 Objectives
This plan is designed as an ongoing effort to educate various audiences about four main objectives:
1. Increase the use of state and school report cards for decision-making and continuous student and school improvement. 2. Support a more coherent approach to effectively utilize the array of data and public reporting tools. 3. Continue to implement public awareness strategies which focus on providing support to students and families served by the PK-12 public school system as well as teachers. 4. Equip and empower parents and families to advocate in partnership with community organizations, businesses and others to be aware of, and part of, school improvement efforts.
1
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019
Objective 1. Increase the use of state and school report cards for decision-making and continuous student and school improvement
The first proposed objective for the revised communications plan is to increase the use of state and school report cards for decision-making and continuous student and school improvement. How do we empower stakeholders to feel connected to the data and regularly utilize it to help students and schools? This is an intricate question, but one we must attempt to solve.
In November 2018, the SC Department of Education released the first School Report Cards to contain ratings in four years and the first cards under South Carolina’s joint accountability system for K-12 public schools. The online Report Card is designed to increase accessibility and accountability in schools while also providing easily understood information about school safety, teacher qualifications, and financial data, among other data. While initial usage of the site following the release was high, usage statistics have declined. As was noted in a January 2019 guide to communicating report cards, produced by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), “the next frontier for state leadership is to advance beyond providing access to data to driving the use of data.”1
It is important to remember that the Report Cards, and the data contained within, can be used as tools for various stakeholders. For example, parents could use information during conversations and conferences with teachers and school leaders. Families considering a move to South Carolina could use it to find schools suitable to the needs of their children. Financial information could be used by school board members and voters to make important decisions about schools. They must know about the information before they can use and learn from it.
With assistance from CCSSO, EOC staff has analyzed the activities of other states designed to drive use of state and School Report Cards. The Louisiana Department of Education, for example, has actively encouraged use of their site, www.louisianaschools.com, through the creation of web and social media graphics that promote the school report card. The Department of Education in Louisiana also printed a one-page flyer that was disseminated to schools, pediatricians’ offices, and others to guide users to the site, providing them with questions they can find answers to if they access the site.
1 Council of Chief State School Officers, https://ccsso.org/resource-library/communicating-performance-best-practice-resource- encouraging-use-state-and-school, January 2019 2
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019
Louisiana also produced a four-minute video describing the report cards and an overview of the Louisiana School Performance Scores. The video can be viewed on the DOE’s YouTube page.
Online engagement is a common strategy used by states to encourage the use of school report cards. The Illinois State Board of Education hosts an annual webinar for educators on analyzing, contextualizing, and communicating report card data to stakeholders and the media. The 2018 presentation and webinar are archived online at https://www.isbe.net/Pages/ReportCardArchive.aspx.
Mississippi also produced a two-minute video, geared toward helping families understand the Mississippi Succeeds ESSA Report Cards. The Nevada Dept of Education added a brief feedback survey to the front page of the website www.nevadareportcard.com, which allows them the opportunity to make revisions to the “user experience” based on survey feedback from users.
EOC staff proposes the strategies and tactics, noting the intended audience, be used to achieve Objective 1:
Objective 1. Increase the use of state and school report cards for decision-making and continuous student and school improvement
Objective / Tactic Deliverable / Accountability Measures Intended Audience(s) 1.1.Develop and launch a brief • User survey developed in March 2019 by All stakeholders: user survey for users of the SC EOC staff with collaboration from SCDE General Public Report Card site. Use feedback staff: to improve site. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3NJ863S Data collection ongoing. Will share results with SCDE staff, including web developers, and make recommendations based on survey feedback.
1.2. Host focus groups for • Summer focus groups using parents who Parents and Families parents and families to determine have signed up to participate from user if current method of school survey accountability reporting is effective 1.3.Develop and launch social • EOC staff to develop social media graphics All stakeholders: media graphics for Facebook, for use on EOC social media channels: General Public Twitter, and Instagram directing Facebook, Twitter, Instagram public to State and School Report Distribute to school Cards PIOs for schools to put on their websites (optional)
3
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019 1.4. Develop and disseminate • EOC staff to develop one-pager flyer and Parents/Families for printed materials about poster about the SC School Report Cards, school-aged children www.screportcards.com, to be and the “Find a School” features scheduled distributed to SC pediatricians, to launch with 2019 report card release. county libraries, and schools. 1.5. Develop and launch a brief • Share via EOC social media channels All stakeholders: video providing an overview of General Public the report cards and how schools receive ratings 1.6. Develop and launch a brief • Share via EOC social media channels Parents/Families for video outlining ways that the school-aged children report cards can be used to help students and schools Community leaders
Businesses
SICs/PTAs/PTOs
1.7. Produce webinars for • Intended to share basic information, Educators principals and school personnel updates to the system and provide tips to prior to the release of the 2019 schools about telling their own stories. School Boards Report Cards • These webinars will be archived so persons unable to attend can view the content of the PIOs webinar as well as the questions. To be scheduled in Fall 2019
1.8. Provide printed materials to • The dissemination of these materials is Parents and Families schools explaining the school and intended for IGP conferences in 8th grade via district report cards (more details as well as scheduling conferences for 8th Educators (Guidance than one-page flyer and poster.) grade. Counselors and • These materials would be a “scaled-down” College Counselors) version of the “2018 Guide to the School Report Cards,” produced by the EOC. Legislators • Printed materials to be translated in Spanish and made available online.
1.9. Develop customizable • Allows schools to highlight their successes Educators presentation on the Report Card while explaining how to navigate the site for schools to utilize during and use the information to support leaning events like Parent Nights. at home 1.1.1. Produce and publish 2018- • Publication to occur no later than July 1 Educators 19 Accountability Manual in conjunction with the SCDE. School district personnel
1.1.2. Update “Guide to the SC • Summer 2019 Legislators School Report Cards and distribute to all new SC legislators
4
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019
Objective 2: Support a more coherent approach to effectively utilize the array of data and public reporting tools
There is no shortage of data available to stakeholders when it comes to students and schools, but sometimes all the data doesn’t make it into the hands of stakeholders. Other times, stakeholders get access to important information, but it isn’t presented in a format or fashion so that it is understandable or actionable. In a December 2018 report from Learning Heroes, national research shows that parents rely heavily on report card grades as “their primary source of information and assume good grades mean their child is performing at grade level.” While parents rely heavily on grades, nearly half of teachers (48%) in the research study agreed that report card grades “measure effort more than they measure achievement.”2
As the report states, “when parents are exposed to a few pieces of understandable and relevant information together, including a report card grade, state test results, and a school performance rating, their thinking shifts.” Parents deserve a complete and understandable view of the progress their child is making – both academic and non-academic -- so that they can help keep them on track for college, career and life success.
While teachers may have many data points about students – data such as Lexiles, state test scores, formative test scores, among others – they also need additional resources to help them engage and share that information with parents of the students they teach. In the Learning Heroes report, one in four teachers say they are “not given the proper support from school administrators” to help parents understand the full picture of a student’s academic performance.
State report cards, as noted in Objective 1, also need to provide parents and the public with information about students and schools. According to a recent analysis of state ESSA Report Cards by the Data Quality Campaign, text on the majority of Report Cards is written on a postsecondary reading level.3 While improving the language of the cards while meeting the federal and state mandates is challenging, there is room for improvement to make the report cards understandable and actionable. We must look at the design and language of the report cards and examine whether the design and functionality of the cards supports the use of the cards by target audience.
The second proposed objective for the revised communications plan is to support a more coherent approach to effectively utilize the array of data and public reporting tools. EOC staff proposes the strategies and tactics, noting the intended audience, be used to achieve Objective 2:
Objective 2: Support a more coherent approach to effectively utilize the array of data and public reporting tools
Objective / Tactic Deliverable / Accountability Measures Intended Audience 2.1. Work with SCDE to develop • SCDE has stated that this search will be All stakeholders – a search of schools with specific functional for 2019 Report Card Release. General Public criteria Data will be self-reported by schools in Summer 2019 (current search criteria and definitions provided in Appendix A).
2.2 Partner with SC State Library • Fall 2019 workshops in county libraries Parents and Families on “From Puzzle to Plan”
2 Learning Heroes, https://bealearninghero.org/parent-mindsets/, December 2018 3 Data Quality Campaign, https://dataqualitycampaign.org/showmethedata/, January 2019 5
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019 workshops” focused on building • Currently working with SC State Library to supports for student success and create pilot program and working agenda. providing resources to help parents understand if their children are “on-track” for success 2.3. Develop materials to help • Explore a pilot with school districts to Educators educators work with parents and develop materials and/or training to make families about how to understand student score results meaningful and student-score results and what understandable to parents and students. testing means for parents and Once materials are developed, look at students delivering widely via webinar
2.4. Develop and implement a • Work with other agencies to explore the Parents and Families communications initiative focused development of an online tool that would on the recommendations of the help parents and students in providing Businesses High School Redesign information for high school planning, Committee in 2016 college planning and career planning (see recommendation in High School Task Force Report, http://tinyurl.com/y6p8ht9j)
Note: New Mexico has developed simple Parent Guide with links: https://families.ped.state.nm.us/index.html
2.5.Continue work on • EOC staff will continue to be involved with All stakeholders establishing a comprehensive, Coordinating Council for Workforce longitudinal student data system Development State Data Sharing Task that will be useful to students, Force (led by SC Commerce Dept.). Goals teachers, business, and include identifying innovative ways to use policymakers data for effective program evaluation and improved outcomes.
6
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019
Objective 3: Continue to implement public awareness strategies which focus on providing support to students and families served by the PK-12 public school system as well as teachers.
Objective 3: Continue to implement public awareness strategies which focus on providing support to students and families served by the PK-12 public school system as well as teachers. Objective / Tactic Deliverable / Accountability Measures Intended Audience 3.1. Update online Family Friendly • Update Parent Friendly standards at Parents and Families Standards to reflect new Social www.scfriendlystandards.org. via Studies standards • Work with SCDE staff to have published Schools in Summer 2019 3.2. Develop and disseminate Civic • Toolkit to be produced in family-friendly Parents and Families Competency Toolkit language Out-of-School-Time Providers
Educators
3.3. Reprint “Student Reading • Spanish version competed 2019; Parents and Families Success Activity Guide” based on available online. school district requests. Out-of-School-Time Disseminate Spanish version of Providers document 3.4. Publish monthly electronic • Continue electronic publication of All stakeholders newsletter for all constituent groups monthly EOC e-newsletter (principals; SC State Board; members of Gen. Assembly; Instructional Leaders; superintendents; business contacts; district testing coordinators; education deans; parents; EOC members and staff; PIOs; general interest list. Information communicated includes EOC Reports and Publications as well as surveys and information/opportunity items
7
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019 3.5. Continue Martin’s Math Team, • Program provided standards-based Educators a partnership with USC Athletics, lessons for teachers and students. Other designed to make math fun for content on www.helpwithmathsc.org is to Parents and Families kids, support teachers, and provide assist parents and non-educators with resources to support learning in helping students with resources to help math outside of school. students with often-challenging math material. • Add lesson plans submitted and approved by SC teachers to www.helpwithmathsc.org • Work with educators and Code.org to develop content for computer science; include on www.helpwithmathsc.org.
3.6. Provide resources and • Provide EOC-developed reading Parents and Families education for parents on reading materials upon request. and strategies to make children • Continue to provide in-office library, successful readers encouraging young people to read and choose their own reading material based on interest.
3.7. Continue the publication of • Continue the publication of information Parents and Families online information about private about private schools approved for schools offering scholarships to scholarships students with exceptional needs https://www.eoc.sc.gov/ecenc-program 3.8. Provide communications • Pilots could address non-academic Educators supports to pilots under indicators such as Physical Education, consideration addressing non- Chronic Absenteeism, Arts Education academic School Quality indicators for accountability 3.9. Prepare EOC Toolkit for new • For new EOC members EOC members members of the committee. (includes a primer on Roberts Rules of Order, History of the EOC, etc…)
8
Approved by Public Awareness Subcommittee, May 20, 2019
Objective 4: Equip and empower parents and families to advocate in partnership with community organizations, businesses and others to be aware of, and part of, school improvement efforts
Objective 4: Equip and empower parents and families to advocate in partnership with community organizations, businesses and others to be aware of, and part of, school improvement efforts Objective / Tactic Deliverable / Accountability Measures Intended Audience 4.1. Continue the promotion of • Targeted ads on Facebook, Instagram, Parents and Families ExpectmoreSC.com by targeted and Twitter advertising on social media • Potential production of video showing Community Leaders encouraging stakeholder groups simple things stakeholders can do to to Take Action to help students help students and schools Businesses and schools 4.2 Create blog posts from staff • Utilize blog on expectmoresc.com; push All stakeholders -- and members about education out via social media channels. General Public reform topics
9
10
REVISED April 16, 2019
Appendix A
School characteristics for Main Landing Page (report card users will filter these options to search for schools)
Age/Grade Level
o PK3 o PK4 o Kindergarten o Grade 1 o Grade 2 o Grade 3 o Grade 4 o Grade 5 o Grade 6 o Grade 7 o Grade 8 o Grade 9 o Grade 10 o Grade 11 o Grade 12 o Adult
School Type
o Traditional Public School o Charter School (Physical Building) o Charter School (Virtual) School Program Information
o Advanced Placement
o Afterschool Enrichment
o Cambridge International
o Comprehensive Arts Learning o Music o Visual Arts o Drama/Theater o Dance 11
REVISED April 16, 2019
o Creative Writing o Media Arts and Design
o Dual Credit
o Dual Language / Language Immersion o Spanish o French o German o Russian o Chinese o Latin o Italian o Japanese o American Sign Language
o Foreign Language Offered o Spanish o French o German o Russian o Chinese o Latin o Italian o Japanese o American Sign Language
o Leadership
o Magnet on campus
o Extended Day
o Extended Year
o International Baccalaureate
o Interscholastic Sports
o Montessori Accredited
o JROTC
12
REVISED April 16, 2019
o On-site mental health services
o One-to-one technology
o Positive behavioral interventions and supports
o Single Gender Campus
o STEM/STEAM focus
Overall Rating * (Displays schools with the selected overall Ratings below) – use most current year’s ratings
o Excellent o Good o Average o Below Average o Unsatisfactory
Logistics
o Before-school care
o After-school care
o Uniforms required
Opportunities for Involvement
o Parent Teacher Organization/Association
o School Improvement Council
o Other Parent Organization
o Other Community or Business Organization
13
REVISED April 16, 2019
Definitions for School Characteristics
School Type
Charter school: a publicly funded school established by teachers, parents, or community groups, under the terms of a charter with either a school district, the SC Public Charter School District, or the Erskine Charter Institute.
School Program Information
Advanced Placement: School offers (virtually or in-person) at least one (1) Advanced Placement (AP) course for students enrolled at the school. At least 20 students must be enrolled in one (1) or more AP class and took an AP exam.
Afterschool Enrichment: School provides at least one (1) on-site educational, recreational, and social program for students during the afterschool hours
Cambridge International: School offers at least one (1) Cambridge International course by which students can earn college placement
Comprehensive Arts Learning: School offers direct arts instruction and arts integration on-site during the school day in the following arts areas (list areas separately: Music; Visual Arts; Drama/Theatre; Dance; Creative Writing; and Media Arts and Design)
Dual Credit: High school offers students the opportunity to earn both high school and college credits simultaneously
Dual Language / Language Immersion: School offers education programs and instruction taught in another language other than English. The choices of other languages offered are as follows (check all that apply):
o Spanish o French o German o Russian o Chinese o Latin o Italian o Japanese o American Sign Language Foreign Language Offered: School offers at least one (1) foreign language course either virtually or in-person in the following languages (check all that apply):
14
REVISED April 16, 2019
o Spanish o French o German o Russian o Chinese o Latin o Italian o Japanese o American Sign Language
Leadership: School is a Leader in Me school
Magnet on campus: School offers specialized course or curricula
Extended Day: School offers regular instruction beyond the traditional school hours
Extended Year: School offers regular instruction beyond the traditional school year of 180 days to all or a portion of students
International Baccalaureate: School is an International Baccalaureate school and offers IB courses for college placement
Interscholastic Sports: School offers at least one (1) on-site, school-sponsored sports program governed by the SC High School League
Montessori Accredited: School has a program that is accredited by the Montessori School Accreditation Commission or the American Montessori Society
JROTC: High school has at least one (1) Junior Reserve Officer’s Training Corps (JROTC) Program
On-site mental health services: School provides mental health services at the school site (i.e., mental health counselor from SC Dept. of Mental Health and/or telepsychiatry services)
One-to-one technology: Every student (from grade 3 and above) in the school has access to a device that can access the Internet.
Positive behavioral interventions and supports: school has implemented evidence-based behavioral program which promotes strong relationships through teaching, modeling and positive encouragement.
Single Gender Campus: School offers classes that separate the instruction of male and female students
STEM/STEAM focus: School is an accredited STEM or STEAM school having received accreditation by an independent entity (i.e. AdvancED, etc.)
15
REVISED April 16, 2019
Logistics
Before-school care: School offers child care before regular school hours for free or at a nominal cost
After-school care: School offers child care after regular school hours for free or at a nominal cost
Uniforms required: School requires uniforms for students enrolled in at least one (1) grade at the school
Opportunities for Involvement
Parent Teacher Organization/Association: School has an on-site PTO or PTA that meets regularly
School Improvement Council: School has an on-site SIC that meets regularly
Other Parent Organization: School has a parent organization other than the PTO, PTA, or SIC that meets regularly
Other Community or Business Organization: School has a business or community organization other than the PTO, PTA, or SIC that meets regularly
16
EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: EIA and Improvement Mechanisms
DATE: June 10, 2019
ACTION ITEM: Annual Report on Military-Connected Students for 2017-18
PURPOSE/AUTHORITY Act 289, the Military Family Quality of Life Enhancement Act, was enacted in 2014. The law requires the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to develop an annual report on the educational performance of military connected children:
The Education Oversight Committee, working with the State Board of Education, is directed to establish a comprehensive annual report concerning the performance of military connected children who attend primary, elementary, middle, and high schools in this State. The comprehensive annual report must be in a reader- friendly format, using graphics wherever possible, published on the state, district, and school websites, and, upon request, printed by the school districts. The annual comprehensive report must address at least attendance, academic performance in reading, math, and science, and graduation rates of military connected children.
CRITICAL FACTS EOC staff worked with staff from the SC Department of Education, the Department of Defense State Liaison Office, and the Military Child Education Coalition.
TIMELINE/REVIEW PROCESS Report issued annually. The study began in March of 2019 with the collection and analysis of data provided by South Carolina Department of Education and the Department of Defense State Liaison Office.
ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EOC Cost: No fiscal impact beyond current appropriations.
Fund/Source: EIA funds appropriated for operation of the agency.
ACTION REQUEST
For approval For information
ACTION TAKEN
Approved Amended Not Approved Action deferred (explain)
2019
EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF MILITARY- CONNECTED STUDENTS
Report
06.10.19 Educational Performance of Military-Connected Students, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...... 1
Acknowledgements ...... 2
Summary of Findings and Recommendations ...... 3
Section I: Recent Developments ...... 7
Section II: Demographics of Military-Connected Students ...... 11
Section III: Student Performance ...... 15
Section IV: Support and Engagement of Military-Connected Families and Educators ...... 25
Appendix A: Resources for Military-Connected Students and Families ...... 29
Appendix B: Military-Connected Students by District, February 2018 ...... 33
Appendix C: MCEC Participant Data and Survey Reports……………………………………..35
i
ii
Introduction
May 20, 2019
In 2014, the General Assembly passed Act 289, the Military Family Quality of Life Enhancement Act. The Act’s purpose is to “enhance many quality of life issues for members of the armed forces” (Act 289 Preamble). Part V requests the SC Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to develop an annual report on the educational performance of military-connected children: The Education Oversight Committee, working with the State Board of Education, is directed to establish a comprehensive annual report concerning the performance of military connected children who attend primary, elementary, middle, and high schools in this State. The comprehensive annual report must be in a reader- friendly format, using graphics wherever possible, published on the state, district, and school websites, and, upon request, printed by the school districts. The annual comprehensive report must address at least attendance, academic performance in reading, math, and science, and graduation rates of military connected children.1 The EOC evaluation team worked closely with the military and education community as it developed this report. Professionals, who directly support military families, provided input. Both the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) and Defense Manpower Data Center provided data. The 2019 report provides:
• An overview of the federal Impact Aid program; • Details regarding the demographics of military-connected students; • An update on the academic performance and school attendance of military-connected students as reported for school year 2017-18; and • A summary of the trainings for educators and families to enhance support of military- connected students at home and in school.
1 Section 59-18-900(H) of the South Carolina Code of Laws.
1
Acknowledgements
The EOC is grateful for the assistance of local, state and national organizations and staff in the development of this report. Report contributors include:
Kevin Bruch, Department of Defense State Liaison Office
Judy Glennon, Military Child Education Coalition
Cynthia Hearn, SC Department of Education
Annette Farmer, Military Child Education Coalition
Keith Martin, Military Child Education Coalition
South Carolina School Liaison Officers
2
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
1. Data reported by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) regarding military- connected students are based on district entry of student information into PowerSchool. As a state, South Carolina’s reporting of the number of military-connected students has improved over time. Data provided by the SCDE to the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) indicate there were 14,456 military-connected students in South Carolina’s public schools in school year 2017-18. Almost 70 percent of military-connected students have at least one parent who is active duty, like the prior school year. 2. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires the identification and collection of military- connected student data, and South Carolina has an established mechanism for collecting this information. SCDE manages PowerSchool, the student data information system that is provided to school districts. It is the primary source for student data and is often used for state and federal reporting requirements. In PowerSchool a “Parent Military Status” field includes a list with seven possible student status options, as shown in below.
Military-Connected Student Data Collected in PowerSchool, October 25, 20182 New Values
(blank) – Neither Parent nor Guardian is serving in any military service. 01 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the National Guard and is not currently deployed. 02 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the Reserves and is not currently deployed. 03 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the National Guard and is currently deployed. 04 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the Reserves and is currently deployed. 05 - A Parent or Guardian is serving in the military on active duty and is not deployed. 06 - A Parent or Guardian is serving in the military on active duty and is currently deployed.
In response to ESSA, the SCDE provides more detailed academic performance data on military-connected students that can be disaggregated by gender, economic status, English learner status, disability status, gender, homeless status, gifted and talented status, and foster care status.
3. Of the 14,456 military-connected students reported by school districts to SCDE in school year 2017-18, approximately 90 percent of the students attended one of the eleven school districts listed in the table below. Appendix B provides additional detail for all school districts.
2 SC State Reporting Updates, Update dated October 25, 2018. Accessed at https://ed.sc.gov/data/information-systems/power-school/sc-state-reporting-updates/. 3
Districts with Highest Military-Connected Student Populations, School Year 2017-18
District Frequency Percent
Richland 2 3,831 27.23 Dorchester 2 1,583 11.25 Berkeley 1,575 11.22 Beaufort 1,138 8.09 Horry 1,024 7.28 Lexington 1 1,010 7.18 Kershaw 724 5.15 Sumter 717 5.10 Lexington 5 563 4.00 SC Public Charter School District 326 2.32 Charleston 226 1.61 Total 12,717 90.44 Source: SC Department of Education, February 2019 data provided to EOC.
4. Approximately 1,550 military-connected students had at least one parent who was deployed in school year 2018, representing a slight increase from 2017. In addition, 62 military- connected students were reported to have a parent who was on active duty but died within the last year. Another 717 military-connected students have a parent who was on active duty and wounded within the last year. While it is a small percentage of the overall number of military-connected students, the number of military-connected students with a parent who was wounded in 2018 more than quadrupled from 2016. About 73 percent of military-connected students have at least one guardian or parent who is on active duty or deployed. 5. Military-connected students continue to outperform their peers on state-administered standardized tests in all subjects and grades. The performance of military-connected students is most significant in third through fifth grades. For example, during the 2017-18 school year in English language arts, 62.2 percent of third grade military-connected students scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations on SC READY as compared to 45.2 percent of their peers who scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations. In mathematics, 72.1 percent of military-connected third graders scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations, and 55.7 percent of their peers scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations, representing a 16.4 percent difference. 6. During the 2017-18 school year, military-connected students outperformed all students statewide on the End-of-Course Examination Program exams (Algebra 1, English 1 and Biology), but the gap between military-connected students and all students is closing. On average, military-connected students’ mean scores were 3.8 points higher; in the prior year the military-connected students’ mean scores were higher by 4.5 points.
4
7. During the 2017-18 school year, the high school graduation rate for military-connected students remained constant at 94.1 percent, including National Guard and Reserves. The state on-time graduation rate was 81.0 percent. 8. Between October 2018 through March 2019, the Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) facilitated 78 workshops or training events with 1,490 participants, including SPARC workshops, military transitions course, Student 2 Student and Parent to Parent programs. Military Student Transition Consultants welcomed 207 students; assisted 144 students with transition and problem-solving support; connected with 262 parents; and provided support to 563 school, installation and community personnel to benefit military-connected students. In general, participants agreed the MCEC-facilitated activities were beneficial, as noted in Appendix C. EOC staff did not receive or review MCEC-related participant rosters or surveys.
5
6
I. Recent Developments
Identification and Collection of Military-Connected Student Data
In December 2015, changes to Impact Aid and the identification of military-connected students were enacted due to the congressional passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Under ESSA, the disaggregation of student-level data is required, including the identification, collection and reporting of military-connected students. ESSA also addresses Impact Aid. Funding authorization for Impact Aid remains stagnant. However, some changes to Impact Aid were made:
• technical and formula changes to federal properties that have already reduced program subjectivity and increased timeliness of payments were made permanent;
• the federal properties “lockout” provision that prevented eligible federally-impacted school districts from accessing Impact Aid funding was eliminated;
• the basic support formula was adjusted to ensure equal proration when appropriations are sufficient to fund the Learning Opportunity Threshold; and
• a “hold harmless” provision was included to provide budget certainty to school districts facing a funding cliff or significant changes to their federally-connected student enrollment.3
ESSA requires the state identification, collection and reporting of military-connected students in Title I, Part A, Section 1011:
“(ii) For all students and disaggregated by each subgroup of students described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(xi), homeless status, status as a child in foster care, and status as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 101(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code) on active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(5) of such title), information on student achievement on the academic assessments described in subsection (b)(2) at each level of achievement, as determined by the State under subsection (b)(1).4
This federal requirement will provide more consistent, easily identifiable data regarding military- connected students with a parent on active duty. As student identification improves, additional supports may be put into place to assist students who live with perpetual challenges presented by frequent moves, parental and sibling deployments, and transitions that include reintegration
3 National Conference of State Legislatures, “Summary of the Every Student Succeeds Act, Legislation Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.” May be accessed at: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/capitolforum/2015/onlineresources/summary_12_10.pdf. 4 Every Student Succeeds Act. More information may be accessed at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html.
7
and dealing with profoundly changed parents. The well-being of these children depends heavily on a network of supportive adults who are trained to identify early signs of emotional or physical challenge.
SC Collection of Military-Connected Student Data
ESSA requires the identification and collection of military-connected student data. South Carolina has an established mechanism for collecting this information. The SC Department of Education (SCDE) manages PowerSchool, the student data information system that is provided to school districts. It is the primary source for student data and is often used for state and federal reporting requirements. Student level data are input, validated and maintained by local school districts. The data are then transferred (pushed from districts) electronically to the SCDE through the Enrich Data Collection Tool. In PowerSchool a “Parent Military Status” field includes a list with seven possible student status options, as shown in Table 1 below.5 This field remains unchanged since the 2015 EOC report on military-connected students. In its most recent PowerSchool Data Collection Manual for January-February 2018, SCDE emphasizes “verifying all foster, homeless, migrant or military-connected students are data accurately indicate their status. If any student meets the definition at any point during the school year, that student should be counted for the entire year.”6
In response to ESSA, the SCDE provides more detailed academic performance data on military- connected students that can be disaggregated by gender, economic status, English learner status, disability status, gender, homeless status, gifted and talented status, and foster care status.
Data reported by SCDE regarding military-connected students are based on district entry of student information into this field. As noted earlier in this report, districts may also receive federal Impact Aid funding for students who have at least one parent who is federally-connected.
The October 25, 2018 update to PowerSchool modified Parent Military Status. Now only students of active or full-time military parents should be coded. The choice set reflects this change. This field determines student’s status for the “Military Connected” accountability subgroup in Table 1 below.7
5 SC Department of Education, “PowerSchool Data Collection Manual, Fall 2016-17,” p. 127. May be accessed at: http://www.ed.sc.gov/data/information-systems/power-school-administration/powerschool- manuals-for-s-c-pages/powerschool-data-collection-manual-2016-2017/. 6 SC Department of Education, “PowerSchool Data Collection Manual, January-February 2018,” p. 7. May be accessed at: https://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/File/DataCollectionSched/SC_PS_Data%20Collection- Specific_Fields_Combo%202017-18%20Winter%20Final.pdf, p. 145. 7 SC State Reporting Updates, Update dated October 25, 2018. Accessed at https://ed.sc.gov/data/information-systems/power-school/sc-state-reporting-updates/. 8
Table 1 Military-Connected Student Data Collected in PowerSchool, October 25, 20188
New Values
(blank) – Neither Parent nor Guardian is serving in any military service. 01 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the National Guard and is not currently deployed. 02 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the Reserves and is not currently deployed. 03 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the National Guard and is currently deployed. 04 - A Parent or Guardian is serving Full-time in the Reserves and is currently deployed. 05 - A Parent or Guardian is serving in the military on active duty and is not deployed. 06 - A Parent or Guardian is serving in the military on active duty and is currently deployed.
8 SC State Reporting Updates, Update dated October 25, 2018. Accessed at https://ed.sc.gov/data/information-systems/power-school/sc-state-reporting-updates/. 9
10
II. Demographics of Military-Connected Students
National, state and local district collection of military-connected student data continues to be inconsistent. ESSA requires the disaggregation of student-level data, including military- connected students. When this requirement is fully implemented, data collection should become more consistent and accurate.
Number of Military-Connected Students
Data related to military-connected students are collected and reported by districts in PowerSchool. Table 2 below shows 2018 data provided by SC Department of Education in February 2019 (for 2016 through 2018 school years) and includes National Guard, Reserves and active duty military personnel. Approximately 1,550 military-connected students had at least one parent who was deployed in school year 2018, representing a slight increase from 2017. In addition, 62 military-connected students were reported to have a parent who was on active duty but died within the last year. Another 717 military-connected students have a parent who was on active duty and wounded within the last year. While it is a small percentage of the overall number of military-connected students, the number of military-connected students with a parent who was wounded in 2018 more than quadrupled from 2016 About 73 percent of military-connected students have at least one guardian or parent who is on active duty or deployed.
There was significant improvement in district reporting of military-connected students from 2016 to 2018 school years. Families and educators need to continue assisting with the reporting of this data, so district and school staff can identify students who may need additional support services. Military-connected students live with perpetual challenges presented by frequent moves, parental and sibling deployments, and additional transitions that include reintegration and dealing with profoundly changed parents. The well-being of these children depends heavily on a network of supportive adults who are trained to identify early signs of emotional, physical and academic challenges.
Table 2 Military-Connected Students, by Parental Military Branch and Deployment Status, 2016-18 School Years School Year 2016 School Year 2017 School Year 2018 Military
Connection Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
National Guard - 2,116 14.64% 1,546 12.20% 1,839 13.08% Not Deployed Reserves - Not 1,784 12.34% 1,231 9.72% 1,628 11.57% Deployed National Guard - 326 2.26% 161 1.27% 315 2.24% Deployed
11
School Year 2016 School Year 2017 School Year 2018 Military
Connection Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Reserves - 111 0.88% 168 1.19% Deployed 227 1.57% Active Duty Military - Not 8,649 68.26% 8,837 62.83% 8,530 59.01% Deployed Active Duty 997 6.90% 883 6.97% 954 6.78% Military - Deployed Active Duty Military - 24 0.19% 49 0.35% Deceased in last 62 0.43% year Active Duty Military - Wounded 66 0.52% 275 1.96% 414 2.86% in last year Subtotal Active 9,622 10,115 Duty 10,003 Total 12,671 14,070 14,456 Source: SC Department of Education, data reported to EOC.
Of the 14,456 military-connected students reported by school districts to SCDE, approximately 88 percent of the students attend one of the eleven school districts listed in Table 3 below. Appendix B provides additional detail for all school districts. South Carolina’s largest military installations are in Charleston, Beaufort, Richland and Sumter counties.
The Charleston Air Force Base and the Naval Weapons Station in Goose Creek comprise Joint Base Charleston (JB CHS). The installation covers almost 24,000 acres, and includes: three seaports, two civilian-military airfields, 39 miles of rail, and 22 miles of coastline. The Charleston Air Force Base houses C-17 aircraft, and is home to the 437th Air Base Wing, the 628th Air Base Wing, and the 315th Air Wing. The Naval Weapons Station houses several programs, including the Navy’s Nuclear Power Training Program, the Naval Information Warfare Center (NIWC) Atlantic, and a number of other tenant commands. The Naval Health Clinic, and the Air Force Military Treatment Facility, provide many medical services for military members and their families. The base is host to more than 60 Department of Defense and Federal agencies and is associated with approximately 50,000 jobs. The installation provides $3.6 billion in labor income, and an economic impact of $8.7 billion per year.
Both the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort and Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island/Eastern Recruiting Region are in Beaufort County. Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, home of the Marine Corps' Atlantic Coast fixed-wing, fighter-attack aircraft assets, is in the heart of the South Carolina 12
Lowcountry and is among the United States military's most important and most historically colorful installations. Consisting of some 7,000 acres 70 miles southwest of Charleston, South Carolina on Highway 21, the installation is home to five Marine Corps F/A- 18 squadrons and one F-35B Fleet Replacement Squadron. Two versions of the F/A-18 Hornet are found aboard MCAS Beaufort, the F/A-18C Hornet and the F/A-18D Hornet. The F-35B squadron is also the only location in the world where pilots train to fly the F-35B. The squadron also trains the United Kingdom's future F-35B pilots and maintainers. The Marine Corps Recruit Depot is located on Parris Island and is one of the most visited military facilities in the world, hosting more than 120,000 guests each year. It is the headquarters of the Eastern Recruiting Region and for recruit training for all females and males east of the Mississippi River.
Fort Jackson and Shaw Air Force Base are in the Midlands. Located in Richland County, Fort Jackson is the Army’s main production center for Basic Combat Training. Approximately 50 percent of the Army’s Basic Combat Training is completed at Fort Jackson, with more than 48,000 basic training and 12,000 additional advanced training Soldiers every year. Fort Jackson is home to the U.S. Army Soldier Support Institute, the Armed Forces Army Chaplaincy Center and School, the National Center for Credibility Assessment (formerly the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute, and the Drill Sergeant School, which trains all Active Duty and Reserve instructors.
Shaw Air Force Base in Sumter County is home to Air Force's largest combat F-16 wing, the 20th Fighter Wing. Shaw also serves as home to Headquarters Ninth Air Force, U.S. Air Forces Central, Third Army, U.S. Army Central and many other tenant units.9
9 Information regarding South Carolina’s military installations gathered from military installation websites and school liaison officers. 13
Table 3 Districts with Highest Military-Connected Student Populations, School Years 2016-17 and 2017-2018
School Year 2016-17 School Year 2017-18
District Frequency Percent District Frequency Percent
Richland 2 3,831 27.23 Richland 2 4011 27.75 Dorchester 2 1,583 11.25 Dorchester 2 1593 11.02 Berkeley 1,575 11.22 Horry 1475 10.2 Beaufort 1,138 8.09 Beaufort 1176 8.14 Horry 1,024 7.28 Berkeley 1062 7.35 Lexington 1 1,010 7.18 Lexington 1 981 6.79 Kershaw 724 5.15 Sumter 702 4.86 Sumter 717 5.10 Kershaw 599 4.14 Lexington 5 Lexington/Richland 551 3.81 563 4.00 5 SC Public SC Public Charter 335 2.32 Charter School District 326 2.32 School District Charleston 226 1.61 Anderson 1 213 1.47 Total 12,717 90.44 12,698 87.85 Source: SC Department of Education, data reported to EOC.
14
III. Student Performance
This section provides academic and attendance data for military-connected students for school year 2017-18 including: • student achievement as measured by SC READY for third through eighth grades in English language arts and mathematics; • student achievement as measured by SC PASS on science for students in grades 4, 6 and 8; • student achievement as measured by the End-Of-Course Examination Program (EOCEP); • high school graduation rates; and • student attendance.
Academic Data
The academic achievement of military-connected students was compared to the academic achievement of all students in South Carolina, including students in third through eighth grades on SC READY for English language arts (ELA) and mathematics and SC PASS for science for students in grades 4, 6 and 8 For high school students, student performance on the South Carolina End-of-Course Evaluation Program (EOCEP) was considered.
Student Achievement in Grades Three through Eight
The EOC analyzed student achievement in school year 2017-18 in grades 3 through 8 in English language arts, mathematics and science. According to the South Carolina Department of Education’s website,
The South Carolina College-and Career-Ready Assessments (SC READY) are statewide assessments in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics that measure the academic progress of students against the measure whether students that will meet all of the requirements of Acts 155 and 200, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), and the Assessments Peer Review guidance.10
The South Carolina Palmetto Assessment of State Standards (SCPASS) is a statewide assessment administered to students in grades four, six, and eight for science and grades five and seven for social studies. All students in these grade levels are required to take the SCPASS except those who qualify for the South Carolina Alternate Assessment (SC-Alt). 11
10 Information accessed on SCDE website at https://ed.sc.gov/tests/middle/sc-ready/ on May 6, 2019. 11 Information accessed on SCDE website at https://ed.sc.gov/tests/middle/scpass/ on May 6, 2019. 15
Tables 4a, 4b and 4c below show military-connected students outperform their peers in all subjects and grades. In the tables “State” represents all South Carolina students, including military-connected students. For 2017-18 data, the percentage of students scoring Meets or Exceeds Expectations is defined accordingly:
• Exceeds Expectations – The student exceeds expectations as defined by the grade-level content standards. The student is considered to be well prepared for the next grade level.
• Meets Expectations – The student meets expectations as defined by the grade-level content standards. The student is considered to be prepared for the next grade level.
The performance of military-connected students is most significant in third through fifth grades. For example, during the 2017-18 school year detailed in Table 4c, in English language arts, 62.2 percent of third grade military-connected students scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations compared to 45.2 percent of their peers who scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations. In mathematics, 72.1 percent of military-connected third graders scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations, and 55.7 percent of their peers scored Meets or Exceeds Expectations, representing a 16.4 percent difference.
Across grades 3 through 8 in ELA, the percentage of military-connected student scoring Meets or Exceeds Expectations surpassed the state average by between 8.9 and 17.0 percent. In mathematics in grades 3 through 8, the percentage of military-connected students scoring Meets or Exceeds Expectations surpassed the state average by between 7.3 and 16.4 percent. In science, the percentage of military-connected students scoring Meets or Exceeds Expectations surpassed the state average by between 10.3 and 15.8 percent.
16
Table 4a 2015-16 SC READY and SCPASS Performance of Military-Connected Students (MCS) and All Students in South Carolina SC READY SC READY SCPASS English Language Arts Mathematics Science State State State Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Grade Percent Percent Percent MCS MCS Meets MCS Meets or MCS Met or Level Meets or Meets or Met or Tested or Exceeds Math Exceeds Science Exemplary Exceeds Exceeds Exemplary 3 1,118 58.9 43.7 1,122 68.0 53.6 0 0 0 4 952 55.8 43.4 954 61.4 46.7 957 79.6 65.0 5 941 55.9 41.2 943 57.4 44.3 942 78.5 65.7 6 880 51.9 41.0 882 48.5 39.5 879 76.0 62.1 7 950 50.6 40.7 951 41.1 34.7 951 81.5 70.6 8 877 53.6 44.7 876 38.6 32.4 874 77.1 66.2 Source: SC Department of Education, February 2017 reported to EOC.
Table 4b 2016-17 SC READY and SCPASS Performance of Military-Connected Students (MCS) and All Students in South Carolina SC READY SC READY SCPASS English Language Arts Mathematics Science State State State Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Grade Percent Percent Percent MCS MCS Meets MCS Meets or MCS Met or Level Meets or Meets or Meets or Tested or Exceeds Math Exceeds Science Exemplary Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds 3 1,160 57.7 42.1 1,159 70.8 52.5 0 N/A 4 1,166 55.1 40.9 1,166 61.8 46.4 1,168 63.4 48.4 5 1,068 50.9 38.3 1,070 44.2 40.0 1,070 61.6 46.1 6 991 53.1 39.7 991 52.1 41.5 993 61.8 48.0 7 1,006 46.6 36.4 1,006 41.7 33.3 1,004 58.8 46.5 8 1,009 47.8 40.1 1,009 42.5 34.5 1,008 61.9 49.0
17
Table 4c12 2017-18 SC READY and SCPASS Performance of Military-Connected Students (MCS) with Active Duty Parents and All Students in South Carolina SC READY SC READY SCPASS English Language Arts Mathematics Science State State Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent State Percent Grade Percent Percent MCS MCS Meets MCS Meets or MCS Meets or Meets or Level Meets or Meets or Tested or Exceeds Math Exceeds Science Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds Exceeds 3 1,032 62.2 45.2 1,035 72.1 55.7 4 1,085 58.8 43.9 1,088 63.9 48.1 1,088 65.6 49.8 5 1,090 53.8 38.9 1,092 59.1 45.2 6 1,080 48.8 39.9 1,080 49.9 42.6 1,080 58.0 47.7 7 982 53.5 40.1 982 45.3 34.9 8 931 48.4 39.2 932 49.0 36.6 930 60.1 48.7
12 2017-18 SC READY and SC PASS results for all students accessed at SCDE website at: https://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state- assessments/sc-ready/2018/State-Scores-By-Grade-Level/?ID=9999999 and https://ed.sc.gov/data/test-scores/state-assessments/scpalmetto- assessment-of-state-standards-pass/2018/state-scores-by-grade-level/?ID=9999999. 18
Student Performance in End-of-Course Exams
Table 5 below compares performance on end-of-course exams. During the 2017-18 school year, military-connected students continued to outperform all students statewide on the End-of-Course Examination Program (EOCEP) exams in Algebra 1, English 1 and Biology. On average, military- connected students’ mean scores were 3.8 points higher.
19
Table 5 End-of-Course Assessment Performance of Military Connected Students and All Students Statewide in 2017-18 School Year Academic Military Connected Students All South Carolina Year Students Number of Mean Letter Mean Letter Students Grade Grade Algebra 1 2013 398 83.5 C 78.2 C 2014 535 85.7 B 79.8 C 2015 668 85.7 B 82.6 C 2016 857 85.2 B 81.9 C 2017 1,000 72.2 C 69.4 D 2018 1,043 71.9 C 68.2 D English 1 2013 350 81.3 C 75.3 D 2014 537 82.2 C 76.0 D 2015 636 83.6 C 79.4 C 2016 827 83.7 C 79.8 C 2017 1,024 75.9 C 71.4 C 2018 994 78.1 C 74.1 C Biology 2013 310 84.2 C 78.1 C 2014 451 85.4 B 79.2 C 2015 580 86.5 B 82.3 B 2016 795 86.9 C 81.6 C 2017 943 81.5 C 75.3 C 2018 921 72.8 C 69.2 D Source: SC Department of Education, March 2019 data reported to EOC.
20
High School Graduation Rate
The federally-approved on-time graduation rate identifies a cohort of students who were ninth grade students in a specific year and calculates the percentage of that cohort that graduates four years later. Students are removed from the cohort when they transfer to other degree-granting institutions or programs. Students who transfer into a district are added to the cohort. For military-connected students this process was not possible because enrollment history of these students was not available. The EOC evaluation team could not determine when students were initially in the ninth grade and could not document transfers into or out of a cohort of students who were initially enrolled in the ninth grade four years prior. Available data identifies students by grade level and graduation status. For students who were identified as being in twelfth grade during the 2017-18 timeframe, the EOC evaluation team could identify: (1) those students who graduated, (2) those who received a certificate or did not graduate, and (3) those students who transferred to other degree-granting institutions and were removed from the graduation cohort. Based on this information, the graduation rates for military-connected students are included below. Table 6 shows during the 2017-18 school year, the high school graduation rate for military- connected students was 94.1 percent, including National Guard and Reserves. The state on-time graduation rate was 81.0 percent, representing a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate: Table 6 2013 – 2018 High School Graduation Rates for Military-Connected Students (MCS) and State Year Total Number of MCS Graduates State MCS 2013 237 96.5 77.5 2014 309 97.4 80.1 2015 407 95.3 80.3 2016 536 96.6 82.6 2017 657 94.1 84.613 2018 694 94.1 81.0 Source: SC Department of Education, March 2019 data reported to EOC.
Attendance Data
School districts want to maximize student instructional time. However, due to deployments and subsequent returns from deployments, there are instances when a military-connected student may need to be excused for absences. Some states, such as Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Michigan and Georgia, have detailed guidance for excusing absences for military- connected students.14
13 Ibid. 14 For more information, refer to Military Child Education Coalition’s “Military-Connected Students and Public School Attendance Policies.” May be accessed at http://www.militarychild.org/public/upload/files/SchoolAttendancePoliciesFINAL.pdf. 21
Student attendance rates were computed using information provided by SCDE. During the 2016- 17 school year, average number of days absent was 4.4 days. Table 7 shows 14 districts reported military-connected students were absent for more than 4.4 school days. In 2016-17, Aiken and Colleton had the highest average absence rate (6.1 days) and the SC Public Charter School District the lowest absence rate of 3 days. During the 2017-18 school year, Charleston had the lowest absence rate of 1.3 days. Districts in bold exceed the average of 4.4 days absent.
Table 7 Average Number of Days Absent in School Districts with at least 30 Military-Connected Students (MCS), 2016-17 School Year District Number Average Number of MCS of Days Absent Aiken 73 6.1 Colleton 79 6.1 Lexington 2 40 6 Pickens 143 5.9 Orangeburg 5 44 5.5 Spartanburg 7 94 5.2 Florence 1 108 5 Hampton 1 74 5 Horry 1,024 5 Greenville 78 4.9 Lexington 1 1,010 4.8 Sumter 717 4.6 Oconee 133 4.5 Richland 2 3,831 4.5 Beaufort 1,138 4.4 Kershaw 724 4.4 Spartanburg 2 50 4.4 Dorchester 2 1,583 4.3 Edgefield 64 4.1 York 3 (Rock Hill) 60 4.1 Berkeley 1,575 3.9 Charleston 226 3.8 Lancaster 97 3.7 Lexington/Richland 5 563 3.6 SC Public Charter District 326 3.0 Source: SC Department of Education, February 2018 data reported to EOC.
During the 2017-18 school year, the average number of days absent among all schools was 5.6 days, representing a 27 percent increase from the 2016-17 school year average of 4.4 days. Like 2016-17 school year, Table 8 lists 13 school districts with military-connected students exceeded the 5.6-day average. Districts in bold exceed the 5.6-day absent average. The average number of days absent among military students was 4.7 days. Hampton 1 had the highest number of average days absent among military students (6.8 days), and the S.C. Public Charter School 22
District continued to have the lowest number of average days absent among military students (2.4 days).
Table 8 Average Number of Days Absent in School Districts with at least 30 Military-Connected Students (MCS), 2017-18 School Year District Number of Average Number MCS of Days Absent Aiken 63 6.5 Colleton 80 7.3 Pickens 157 6.2 Orangeburg 5 39 5.4 Spartanburg 7 77 7.3 Florence 1 105 6.7 Hampton 1 63 6.8 Horry 1,475 5.6 Greenville 94 5.1 Lexington 1 981 5.6 Sumter 702 6.3 Oconee 163 5.9 Richland 2 4,011 4.9 Beaufort 1,176 4.8 Kershaw 599 5.7 Spartanburg 2 58 5.3 Dorchester 2 1,593 5.9 York 3 (Rock Hill) 57 5.4 Berkeley 1,062 5.7 Charleston 163 1.3 Lancaster 45 5.5 Lexington/Richland 5 551 4.7 SC Public Charter District 335 2.4 Source: SC Department of Education, February 2019 data reported to EOC.
23
24
IV. Support and Engagement of Military-Connected Families and Educators
Proviso 1A.69 of the Fiscal Year 2018-19 General Appropriation Act directed the Education Oversight Committee to expend $225,000 of the funds for Partnerships for Innovation to:
“initiate in at least two school districts with high military density, a pilot program that will provide trainings, services, resources and research to teachers, counselors, mental health professionals, school nurses, service providers and military parents. The objective of the pilot is to increase the level of educational quality and support for military-connected children…Pursuant to its responsibilities under Act 289 of 2014, the Education Oversight Committee will report on the expenditure of these funds and post-training evaluation in its annual report on the educational performance of military-connected children.”
The Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) received the 1A.69 funding and $350,000 in SC Lottery Funds to implement programs and support for educators and military-connected families. MCEC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, world-wide organization, focused on ensuring quality educational opportunities for all military children affected by mobility, family separation, and transition. MCEC is also an Authorized Provider by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET).
During the 2018-19 school year, EOC staff worked closely with the Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) to ensure the intent of the proviso was met. School liaison officers also provided support and guidance about workshop content and family engagement.
Between October 2018 through March 2019, the Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) facilitated 78 workshops or training events with 1,490 participants, including SPARC workshops, military transitions course, Student 2 Student and Parent to Parent programs. Military Student Transition Consultants welcomed 207 students; assisted 144 students with transition and problem-solving support; connected with 262 parents; and provided support to 563 school, installation and community personnel to benefit military-connected students. In general, participants agreed the MCEC-facilitated activities were beneficial, as noted in Appendix C.15
MCEC strategies include: • retaining a Military Transition Consultant Affiliate (MSTA) in some locations. An MSTA is an employee of the LEA assigned to a campus. In addition to this Guidance Professional's responsibilities, participation as an Affiliate provides additional resources and support through the MCEC network to assist military-connected students. • implementing the “Tell Me A Story” program. TMAS’ mission is to empower military children by using literature and their own stories in a way that fosters skills for resilience, strong peer and parent connections, a sense of pride and accomplishment, and a caring community. Tell Me A Story is a family literacy event geared toward children ages 4-12.
15 EOC staff did not receive or review MCEC-related participant rosters or surveys. 25
TMAS provides opportunities to open discussion on difficult topics such as deployment, separation and moving. We want children to have the skills they need to be resilient. Through TMAS, children (and parents) can recognize that they are an active part of a caring community-not just recipients of this care, but also participants in caring for others. TMAS can help give children the tools needed to be resilient and have a positive optimistic outlook. • Providing workshops to enhance military families’ skills or understanding of their children’s needs, such as “Kids in the Kitchen.” • establishing peer support programs. Established in 2004, Student 2 Student (S2S) is a high school level student program that brings military and civilian students together to welcome new students, create a positive environment, support academic excellence, and ease transitions. MCEC Parent to Parent community-based teams offer workshops with practical ideas, proven techniques, and solid resources to support military families. Staffed with military-connected parents who are professionally trained and sourced with materials based on the latest research on a wide range of topics of interest to military families. The first teams were placed in military communities in 2006 and since that time, more than 236,000 participants have come through our MCEC Parent to Parent workshops world- wide. Begun in 2006, Parent to Parent teams usually consist of two to four highly-trained professionals and they concentrate on providing the parent workshops to families in their region. The teams are familiar with the needs of the parents in their home communities because they are personally involved in their children’s schools and other organizations where parents come together. They use their knowledge and training to bring the most important information and resources to these same school and organization constituents in interactive and informative workshops designed to educate parents and other caring adults as they guide our military-connected children through their educational journey. Support for educators and military families has increased overtime: $100,000 in FY 2016-17, $300,00 in FY 2017-18, to $575,000 in FY 2018-19. Due to the increased funding amount, MCEC worked directly with multiple districts to determine appropriate programs and activities. MCEC’s financial expenditures are included in Table 12, with implementation details noted below. • Beaufort: MSTA identified and trained. Ready to begin service and will attend 4 days of training at National Training Seminar • Charleston: Workshops presented as of April 2019 include Charleston AFB Library, Naval Weapons Station Library, and Midland Park Primary School (total of 33 so far). Multiple workshops scheduled in the next few months (22 scheduled for April and May) at Marrington Elementary School, Goose Creek Elementary School, the AFB youth center, and Philip Simmons Middle School. One workshop participant provided feedback through a Facebook post about how she utilized information learned in the Kids in the Kitchen workshop she attended. The mom reported that she included her seven-year-old child in meal planning, grocery shopping, and packing her own lunch as was suggested in the workshop to allow children some independence and autonomy. The mom stated that she
26
was pleasantly surprised to see the healthy choices her child made which helped their family to bond around food rather than their previous experiences of "power struggle" over what the child would eat. • Columbia: Team Columbia has been marketing throughout Richland 1 and Richland 2 Schools and the Columbia area. We have good community, school, and military- connected relationships. Team Columbia has presented 80 workshops to date and currently have 12 additional workshops booked as we continue to market to new and existing venues. The team hosted 2 TMAS events, 1 mini TMAS, and have another TMAS booked for April 2019. There are regularly-scheduled team meetings with the following partners: Richland School District Two Director of Family and Parent Programs and DODEA Grant Group (Counselors/Administrators/SLOs) and SC National Guard Service Member and Family Care. These groups have been extremely helpful and significant in our marketing and advertising efforts. MCEC continues to develop its partnership with Richland One and has participated in several marketing events and connected with over 20 Family Engagement Specialists for the district. Also, The Month of Military Child efforts in SC has been extremely positive in our Parent to Parent success as we anticipate April 2019 to be full of events as it was last year. We are optimistic regarding our frequently booked venues to include: Richland County Library, Chick-Fil-A, and Fort Jackson New Parent Support Program. The newest venue is WholeFoods. Participants from all age groups, birth through high school, have been reached. MCEC scheduled 73 workshops with 901 workshop participants. 61 Workshop attendees have provided survey data for us and that data indicates that the team has an overall approval rating of 90 percent. • Sumter: To maintain continuity in service, MCEC is supporting the MSTA position until additional funds are received later in the year. • Aiken: Both North Augusta High School and Silver Bluff High School participated in the “Student to Student” peer program.
Between October 2018 through March 2019, the Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) facilitated 78 workshops or training events with 1,490 participants, including SPARC workshops, military transitions course, Student 2 Student and Parent to Parent programs. Military Student Transition Consultants welcomed 207 students; assisted 144 students with transition and problem-solving support; connected with 262 parents; and provided support to 563 school, installation and community personnel to benefit military-connected students. In general, participants agreed the MCEC-facilitated activities were beneficial, as noted in Appendix C. EOC staff did not receive or review MCEC-related participant rosters or surveys.
27
28
Appendix A Resources for Military-Connected Students and Families
South Carolina School Support Resources
School Liaison Officers serve as a primary point of contact for students and their families transitioning to new communities and schools. They are also a resource for schools and school districts. To view a list of school liaison officers by branch, go to https://www.dodea.edu/Partnership/schoolLiaisonOfficers.cfm.
Fort Jackson School Liaisons provide ongoing educational support for military connected schools. This comprehensive website provides information about public and private schools, homeschooling, and local school districts. https://jackson.armymwr.com/programs/school-liaison-officer
https://www.facebook.com/Jackson-CYS-School-Liaison-Officer-152018352105106/
Shaw Air Force Base is home to the 20th Fighter Wing, Headquarters Nine Air Force/United States Central Command of Air Forces and several associate units. Shaw’s units are assigned to Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. School Liaison information may be found at the website below. https://www.shaw.af.mil/About-Us/Newcomer-Information/
Marine Corps Air Station and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot are in Beaufort. School support information may be accessed at the website below. http://www.mccs-sc.com/mil-fam/slp.shtml
Joint Base Charleston School information may be accessed under the “Charleston Area Schools” link at:
https://www.jbcharleston.jb.mil/About-Us/Library/Newcomers
South Carolina Program Resources
The International Baccalaureate Program helps students develop skills to create a better and peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect. For more information, including a list of South Carolina schools participating in the IB Program, go to https://www.ed.sc.gov/instruction/standards-learning/advanced-academic- programs/international-baccalaureate-programs-ib/.
Four-year-old kindergarten is available in the state and is offered in public schools and private child care centers. State-funded prekindergarten for four-year-olds serves children in the “most 29
at-risk” category, where family income falls 185% below poverty level or the family is Medicaid eligible. Families may also be eligible for other services such as Even Start, Head Start, state- funded family literacy programs, Social Security, food stamps, Medicaid or temporary assistance to needy families (TANF).
Children also qualify in case of a documented developmental delay, an Individual Education Plan (IEP) requiring pre-kindergarten, incarceration of a parent, placement in a foster home, or a child who is homeless. Documentation of family or child “most at-risk” conditions must be kept on file for review. Children who participate in free and reduced meal programs at the center/school they attend may also qualify, if income eligibility is verified on each child and records are kept on file for review.
Some districts use local funds to serve children who are not in the “at risk” category. Several districts serve all children who request services. A few districts charge a fee for non-qualifying children, but state regulations prohibit any fees for “at risk” children.
State law says that “students may enter kindergarten in the public schools of this State if they will attain the age of four on or before September first of the applicable school year.”
https://www.ed.sc.gov/instruction/early-learning-and-literacy/cerdep/
National Resources
Department of Defense Education Activity provides professional development training in a webinar format for school liaison officers. This information is also helpful for local school districts to understand the needs of students and how to support them in a comprehensive manner.
https://www.dodea.edu/
Military Impacted School Association is a national organization of school superintendents. MISA supports school districts with a high concentration of military children by providing detailed, comprehensive information regarding impact aid and resources for families and schools.
http://militaryimpactedschoolsassociation.org/
The Military Interstate Children’s Compact Commission (MIC3) provides consistent policy in every school district and in every state that voluntarily joins MIC3. MIC3 addresses key educational transition issues such as enrollment, placement, attendance, eligibility and graduation. http://www.mic3.net
30
The Military Child Education Coalition (MCEC) focuses on ensuring quality educational opportunities for all military children affected by mobility, family separation, and transition. A 501(c)(3) non-profit, world-wide organization, the MCEC performs research, develops resources, conducts professional institutes and conferences, and develops and publishes resources for all constituencies.
http://www.militarychild.org/
Military OneSource is a confidential Department of Defense-funded program providing comprehensive information on every aspect of military life at no cost to active duty, National Guard, and reserve members, and their families.
Information includes, but is not limited to, deployment, reunion, relationships, grief, spouse employment and education, parenting and childhood services. It is a virtual extension to installation services.
The program also provides free resources to schools, including books and videos with relevant topics that help students cope with divorce and deployment.
www.militaryonesource.mil
National Military Family Association (NMFA) a voice for military families advocating on behalf of service members, their spouses, and their children. According to NMFA’s website, NMFA is the “go to” source for Administration Officials, Members of Congress, and key decision makers when they want to understand the issues facing military families.
https://www.militaryfamily.org/
31
32
Appendix B Number of Military-Connected Students (MCS) by District, February 2019 Cumulative Cumulative District Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Abbeville 1 0.01 1 0.01 Aiken 63 0.44 64 0.44 Allendale 6 0.04 70 0.48 Anderson 1 213 1.47 283 1.96 Anderson 2 2 0.01 285 1.97 Anderson 4 8 0.06 293 2.03 Bamberg 1 4 0.03 297 2.05 Beaufort 1,176 8.14 1,473 10.19 Berkeley 1,062 7.35 2,535 17.54 Charleston 163 1.13 2,698 18.66 Cherokee 7 0.05 2,705 18.71 Chesterfield 9 0.06 2,714 18.77 Clarendon 2 13 0.09 2,727 18.86 Clarendon 3 1 0.01 2,728 18.87 Colleton 80 0.55 2,808 19.42 Darlington 171 1.18 2,979 20.61 Dillon 4 3 0.02 2,982 20.63 Dorchester 2 1,593 11.02 4,575 31.65 Edgefield 19 0.13 4,594 31.78 Fairfield 5 0.03 4,599 31.81 Florence 1 105 0.73 4,704 32.54 Florence 2 26 0.18 4,730 32.72 Florence 3 1 0.01 4,731 32.73 Georgetown 26 0.18 4,757 32.91 Greenville 94 0.65 4,851 33.56 Greenwood 50 9 0.06 4,860 33.62 Hampton 1 63 0.44 4,923 34.06 Horry 1,475 10.20 6,398 44.26 Jasper 2 0.01 6,400 44.27 Kershaw 599 4.14 6,999 48.42 Lancaster 45 0.31 7,044 48.73 Laurens 55 3 0.02 7,047 48.75 Laurens 56 8 0.06 7,055 48.80 Lee 1 0.01 7,056 48.81 Lexington 1 981 6.79 8,037 55.60 Lexington 2 14 0.10 8,051 55.69 Lexington 3 1 0.01 8,052 55.70
33
Cumulative Cumulative District Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Lexington 4 14 0.10 8,066 55.80 Lexington/Richland 5 551 3.81 8,617 59.61 Marion 10 3 0.02 8,620 59.63 Marlboro 1 0.01 8,621 59.64 Newberry 17 0.12 8,638 59.75 Oconee 163 1.13 8,801 60.88 Orangeburg 3 1 0.01 8,802 60.89 Orangeburg 4 2 0.01 8,804 60.90 Orangeburg 5 39 0.27 8,843 61.17 Pickens 157 1.09 9,000 62.26 Richland 1 130 0.90 9,130 63.16 Richland 2 4,011 27.75 13,141 90.90 S.C. School for Deaf and Blind 1 0.01 13,142 90.91 SC Public Charter School District 335 2.32 13,477 93.23 Saluda 10 0.07 13,487 93.30 Spartanburg 1 2 0.01 13,489 93.31 Spartanburg 2 58 0.40 13,547 93.71 Spartanburg 3 11 0.08 13,558 93.79 Spartanburg 5 4 0.03 13,562 93.82 Spartanburg 6 1 0.01 13,563 93.82 Spartanburg 7 77 0.53 13,640 94.36 Sumter 702 4.86 14,342 99.21 Union 9 0.06 14,351 99.27 Williamsburg 15 0.10 14,366 99.38 York 1 20 0.14 14,386 99.52 York 2 5 0.03 14,391 99.55 York 3 (Rock Hill) 57 0.39 14,448 99.94 York 4 8 0.06 14,456 100.00 Source: SC Department of Education
34
Appendix C Summary of MCEC Activities during FY 2018-19
Participant Type Total Location Program Cost Date Educator Attendance Student Counselor Teacher Admin Other Parent Other Trained Beaufort MSTA $16,000.00 week of 0 March 18 TOTAL $16,000.00 0 Parent to Parent Charleston Team (2 team $60,000.00 In place 196 9 54 277 536 (Dorchester & members) Berkeley) MSTA $16,000.00 In place 99 254 260 158 771 TOTAL $76,000.00 Parent to Parent Columbia Team (2 team $48,500.00 In place 399 37 12 16 54 608 1126 (Richland 1 & 2) members) TOTAL $48,500.00 Parent to Parent (2 Sumter $30,000.00 In place 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 55 team members) MSTA- MCEC is supporting the MSTA position ($16,000) until In Place 116 128 62 17 323 additional funds are received later in the fiscal year. TOTAL $30,000.00 1/10- Aiken S2S $14,000.00 11 1 1 1 14 11/2019 SMCST-F $13,250.00 11/7/2018 43 2 3 48 TOTAL $27,250.00 Edgefield JS2S $14,000.00 3/14-15/19 9 2 1 12 SPARC $13,250.00 12/5/2018 14 5 3 3 25 TOTAL $27,250.00 Statewide funds GRAND TOTAL $225,000.00 * The above costs are paid for with non-recurring EIA funds. 35
Lottery Funding Program Distribution directly to MCEC Jun '19
Beaufort PES $7,200 MSTA $32,000
Sumter Parent to Parent Team (2 pers tm) $30,000
Sumter S2S team to NTS $8,000 Parent to Parent Team $40,000 S2S (2 schools) $14,000 Charleston (Dorchester & Berkeley) J/S2S Booster for 3 schools $9,600
PD (1 of their choice) $27,000
Columbia (Richland 1 & 2) Parent to Parent Team (3 person) $110,800
PD (4 trainings) $54,000 Outreach (SCDE and SCNG) TMAS (2 each) $3,000 PES (2 each) $14,400 Total $350,000
36
The SC Education Oversight Committee is an independent, non-partisan group made up of 18 educators, business persons, and elected leaders. Created in 1998, the committee is dedicated to reporting facts, measuring change, and promoting progress within South Carolina’s education system.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions, please contact the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) staff for additional information. The phone number is 803.734.6148. Also, please visit the EOC website at www.eoc.sc.gov for additional resources.
The Education Oversight Committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or handicap in its practices relating to employment or establishment and administration of its programs and initiatives. Inquiries regarding employment, programs and initiatives of the Committee should be directed to the Executive Director 803.734.6148.
EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: EIA and Improvement Mechanisms
DATE: June 10, 2019
ACTION ITEM: Annual Report on the South Carolina Teacher Loan Program, 2017-18
PURPOSE/AUTHORITY The Teacher Quality Act of 2000 provides that the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee “shall review the [SC Teacher] loan program annually and report to the General Assembly. (Section 59-26-20 (j), SC Code of Laws of 1976, as amended)
CRITICAL FACTS This report provides information for the Fiscal Year 2017-18 implementation of the South Carolina Teacher Loan Program.
TIMELINE/REVIEW PROCESS The study began in March of 2019 with the collection and analysis of data conducted by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education in collaboration with the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation and the South Carolina Department of Education.
ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EOC Cost: No fiscal impact beyond current appropriations.
Fund/Source: EIA funds appropriated for operation of the agency.
ACTION REQUEST
For approval For information
ACTION TAKEN
Approved Amended Not Approved Action deferred (explain)
2017-2018
SC Teacher Loan Program
Annual Report
06.10.19
Annual Report on the South Carolina Teacher Loan Program for Fiscal Year 2017-18
June 10, 2019
The Teacher Quality Act of 2000 directed the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to conduct an annual review of the South Carolina Teacher Loan Program and to report its findings and recommendations to South Carolina General Assembly. Pursuant to Section 59-26-20(j) of the South Carolina Code of Laws, the annual report documenting the program in Fiscal Year 2017- 18 follows. Reports from prior years can be found on the EOC website at www.eoc.sc.gov.
ii
Contents Page
Acknowledgements ...... v
Section I: Summary of Findings ...... 7
Section II: Status of Educator Pipeline ...... 11
Section III: Overview of SC Teacher Loan Program ...... 19
Section IV: Applications to the Teacher Loan Program ...... 27
Section V: Recipients of a SC Teacher Loan ...... 33
Section VI: SC Teacher Loan Advisory Committee ...... 47
Appendix A: Teacher Loan Fund Program ...... 49
Appendix B: 2017-18 SC Teacher Loan Advisory Committee ...... 53
Appendix C: CERRA Memorandum to CHE …………………………………………… 55
iii
Acknowledgements
The Education Oversight Committee (EOC) staff expresses its appreciation to the following individuals who provided data and data analysis for this report:
Jeff Thompson at the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Ray Jones of the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation
Melanie Martin of the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation
Cynthia Hearn at the South Carolina Department of Education
Mary Hipp at the South Carolina Department of Education
Kathryn Crews at the South Carolina Department of Education
Jane Turner and Jennifer Garrett of the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement at Winthrop University
v
vi
I. Summary of Findings
Historical data on the Teacher Loan Program can be found on the EOC website at www.eoc.sc.gov.
New Findings
Finding 1: The Center for Educator Recruitment and Retention (CERRA), released its Annual Educator Supply and Demand Report in January 2019. About 5,341 teachers did not return to any teaching position during the 2018-19 school year, representing a significant 8.7 percent increase in teachers who did not return from the 2017-18 school year.
Approximately 1,937 teachers (26 percent) who left during or at the end of the 2017-18 school year “retired” for the first time, were retirees not rehired by the district or their Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive (TERI) period ended. The number of retirees is an annual increase from 23 percent at the end of the 2016-17 school year.
Finding 2: CERRA’s report also shows that the number of graduates from the teacher education programs in 2018-19 continues to decline while the number of certified teachers who did not return after one year or less of teaching increased by 60 percent from 585 in 2017-18 to 936 in 2018-19.
Finding 3: Applications to the Teacher Loan Program remained steady in 2017-18. The number of applications approved decreased from 1,166 in 2016-17 to 1,132 in 2017-18. Of the 229 applications that were denied, the overriding reason for denial (36.2 percent) was due to the failure of the applicant to meet the academic grade point criteria. For both continuing undergraduates and graduates, the total number of applications remained about the same in 2017-18 as in the prior year.
Finding 4: From 2016-17 to 2017-18, the percentage of male applicants decreased by 1.4 percent. There was a 4.7 percent decrease in African American applicants from 2015-16 to 2016- 17; however, in 2017-18 the percent of African American applicants increased by 1.3 percent.
Finding 5: Overwhelmingly, applicants and recipients of the Teacher Loan Program are white females who were Teacher Cadets and are enrolled as undergraduates. In the past nine years, the data show there is an annual decline in loan recipients between freshman and sophomore years. While the decline seemed to slow in 2015-16, attrition doubled from 41 students in 2016- 17 to 82 students in 2017-18. The number who were Teacher Cadets rose by 1.3 percent in 2017-18 to 44.3 percent. In 2017-18, 79.5 percent were female, and 83.5 percent were White. the number of loan recipients at historically African American institutions significantly decreased from 13 in 2016-17 to 1 in 2017-18.
7
Finding 6: There were 8,383 former Teacher Loan recipients employed in public schools in 2017-18, a slight increase from 7,960 recipients in 2016-17.
Finding 7: No funds were used from the Revolving Loan Fund to supplement the EIA appropriation. In Fiscal Year 2017-18, the total expenditures for loans and administrative costs to the Teacher Loan Program equaled the EIA appropriation. The total amount of monies loaned in 2017-18 was $4,369,461. Not all eligible loans were funded. The ending balance in the revolving fund account as of June 30, 2018 was $8,642,917.60.
The South Carolina Student Loan Corporation does not interpret its current role to have the authority to utilize revolving funds from previous loan repayments to fund the current year loans. Due to the timing of the loan approval process, the Student Loan Corporation funds half of the loans it approves so funds may be approved so the financial aid packages for students may be completed in a timely manner before the beginning of the academic year.1
Finding 8: Subject areas with the most vacancies remained consistent from the 2017-18 school year to the 2018-19 school year. Both early childhood/elementary and Special Education remained the top two content areas with most vacancies. However, as a percentage of total vacancies, the early childhood/elementary vacancies decreased by seven percent to 17 percent in the 2018-19 school year. Mathematics continues to be the area with the third highest number of vacancies, especially in middle and high school levels. Additional subject areas with relatively high levels of vacancies are English language arts, sciences, social studies, music and speech language therapy. Overall the number of vacancies increased by 71.75 positions from the 2017- 18 school year to the 2018-19 school year, representing a 13 percent increase.
Finding 9: In 2017-18 there were 821 schools that were classified as critical geographic need schools. For comparison purposes, in school year 2017-18 there were approximately 1,235 schools in the state that received report card ratings.2 It is estimated 66 percent or two-thirds of all schools were critical geographic need schools, representing a five percent increase from the prior school year. A critical geographic need school is defined by the school’s absolute rating, the school’s average teacher turnover, and the school’s poverty index.
Finding 10: The South Carolina Teacher Loan Advisory Committee normally meets three times a year. During 2017-18, the Committee continued to pursue legislative action on the Committee’s recommended changes to the Teacher Loan Program, following adoption of the recommendations by the SC Commission on Higher Education (CHE) in December 2017. Those recommendations were as follows: increase the loan amount to $7,500 for the junior and senior years while enrolled in a teacher education program, as well as when enrolled in a Master of Arts in Teaching program;
1 E-mail communication with Student Loan Corporation, April 17, 2019. 2 Includes all schools that received a state report card in 2018, including primary, elementary, middle, and high schools.
8
base loan eligibility for the freshman and sophomore years solely on a declared intent to seek a teacher education degree; for future loan program participants, provide loan forgiveness to all who go on to teach in a SC public school, regardless of what school they teach in and what subject they teach, and set the loan forgiveness rate at 33.3% for each completed year of teaching; provide loan forgiveness at the 33.3% rate for all loan recipients who are currently teaching in a SC public school, regardless of the teacher’s subject or school; and replace all references to the SC Student Loan Corporation to language referencing an approved vendor.
Based on advice from House and Senate Education Committee staff, the Committee drafted and submitted a legislative proviso to CHE. No action was taken on the proviso during 2017-18 so the Committee submitted a formal request to CHE in June 2018 requesting that CHE pursue adoption of the proviso during 2018-19.
9
10
II. Status of Educator Pipeline
Nationally, approximately 40 percent of all new teachers leave the classroom within the first five years of employment as compared to all other professions that have a cumulate turnover rate of approximately 17.9 percent.3 Compounding the national issue is the reduction in the number of individuals pursuing a postsecondary degree in education. Between 2009 and 2014, there has been a 35 percent decline in enrollment in educator preparation programs in the country.4 Low unemployment rates in the nation make recruitment of individuals into teaching even more challenging as do the following realities:
In a 2017 survey of 137,456 first-year students at 184 American colleges and universities, 4.6% of students reported “education” as their probable field of study, down from 10.1% in 2003 and 13.3% in 1990.5
Due to the rising cost of a college education and corresponding increase in student loan debt, many economists and financial planners are encouraging students and parents to understand the value of their educational investment and return on their investment by looking at earnings information by careers. In a recent study of undergraduates at Rutgers University, researchers found that “labor market information has an impact on students by lowering their earnings expectations, particularly in the typically high paying fields of business, health, and STEM. Many students hold higher-than-realistic views of their potential future earnings in these fields, and viewing national data on earnings and employment served to lower these expectations. . . Students’ optimistic expectations about earnings in these fields may be cause for concerns to the extent that these perception lead students away from other fields that they may prefer and may be more lucrative than they think.”6 Consequently, as more information on earnings potential is publicized, fewer students may choose education as a career.
3 Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE). (2014). On the path to equity: Improving the effectiveness of beginning teachers. https://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/PathToEquity.pdf. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., and Stuckey, D. (2014) Seven trends: the transformation of the teaching force. CPRE Research Report #RR-80. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/workingpapers/1506_7trendsapril2014.pdf. Darling-Hammond, L. (2001) The challenge of staffing our schools, Educational Leadership, 58(8), 1217. Boushey, H. & Glynn, S.J. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing employees. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/16084443/CostofTurnover0815.pdf. 4 Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., and Carver-Thomas, D. (2016) A Coming Crisis in Teaching? Teacher Supply, Demand, and Shortages in the U.S. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product- files/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT.pdf. 5 CIRP Freshman Survey, 2016 https://www.heri.ucla.edu/monographs/TheAmericanFreshman2016.pdf. 6 Ruder, Alex & Van Noy, Michelle. (2018) Adjusting Expectations: The Impact of Labor Market Information on How Undergraduates View Majors and Careers. Rutgers Education and Employment Research Center.
11
For the first time since the public opinion poll was conducted in 1969, most parents do not want their children to become public school teachers. In 1969 75 percent of parents would have liked for their child to become a teacher. In 2018 46 percent of parents would have liked for their child to become a teacher. As the following chart documents, the sharp increase in the negative perceptions of the profession by parents started in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the first time in our nation’s history when teachers were laid off due to revenue shortfalls.
South Carolina mirrors the national statistics. Much of the following data come from the annual teacher supply and demand reports published annually in January by the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement (CERRA). The following statistics are focused on recruitment and retention:
12
Southern Regional Education Board Report (January 2019) In January of 2019 the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) released the findings and recommendations of a Teacher Preparation Commission.7 The Teacher Preparation Commission met between 2016 and 2018 to design strategies that would increase the number of highly effective teachers in our schools. The Commission recognized the growing teacher shortage issue in many SREB states. Following are the four strategies and recommendations for improving teacher preparation programs that the Commission adopted: Clinical Experiences: Place all teacher candidates in high-quality clinical experiences: Require programs to place candidates in high-quality clinical experiences Develop and offer support for training mentor teachers If states fund stipends for full-year residencies, prioritize any available funding for candidates who intend to teach in hard-to-staff schools, and Require educator preparation programs to report on quality of clinical experiences.
Data Systems: Bring together data from across state and local agencies to inform improvement: Implement a statewide data system to link across state and local agencies, Disseminate data widely, tailored to needs of audiences, and Empower change and expect improvement.
Partnerships: Encourage strong partnerships between teacher preparation programs and local school districts: States should provide incentives and support for strong partnerships between teacher preparation programs and local school districts.
Licensure: Hold all new teachers to the same standard, no matter their route into the profession: Require all teacher candidates to meet the same standard for initial licensure, Adopt practice-based assessments of teacher readiness, and Identify a continuum of teacher development and link it to the licensure system.
Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement (CERRA)
Rural Teacher Recruiting Initiative
Initially, the General Assembly allocated $1,500,000 in Proviso 1A.73 during FY 2015-16 for the Rural Teacher Recruiting Initiative. In FY 2016-17 and 2017-18, $9,748,392 was appropriated to continue implementation of the Initiative.
7 State Policies to Improve Teacher Prepration. Southern Regional Education Board. January 2019. https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/state_policies_to_improve_tp_report_web.pdf.
13
Table 1 Rural Teacher Recruiting Initiative Funding during FY 2015-188 Fiscal Year Proviso Amount Allocated 2015-16 1A.73 $1,500,000 2016-17 1A.64 $9,748,392 2017-18 1A.59 $12.974,900 TOTAL $24,223,292
Proviso 1A.59 continued year three implementation during FY 2017-18 within CERRA to recruit and retain classroom educators in rural and underserved districts experiencing excessive turnover of classroom teachers on an annual basis. Districts eligible to participate in FY 2017- 18 were defined as those experiencing greater than eleven percent average annual teacher turnover, as reported on the five most recent district report cards. Thirty districts were determined to be eligible, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Districts Eligible for Rural Teacher Recruiting Initiative FY 2017-18 Allendale Dorchester 4 Marion Anderson 4 Edgefield Marlboro Bamberg 2 Fairfield McCormick Barnwell 19 Florence 3 Orangeburg 3 Barnwell 29 Florence 4 Orangeburg 4 Barnwell 45 Hampton 1 Orangeburg 5 Beaufort Hampton 2 Richland 1 Clarendon 1 Jasper Saluda Clarendon 2 Lee Sumter Dillon 4 Lexington 4 Williamsburg Source: CERRA, 2018
For year three implementation in FY 2017-18, new incentives were added and, in some cases, the original incentives were expanded, based on input from the various stakeholders. The FY 2017-18 incentives included:
recruitment expenses and materials website upgrades; certification exam fees and certification exam workshop costs; alternative certification fees and costs; critical subject salary supplements; first-year teacher salary supplements; mentor supplements and professional development for mentors and induction teachers;
8 The FY 2017-18 amount includes $9,748,392 appropriated through the Education Improvement Act (EIA) and $3,225,508 in FY 2016-17 carryforward funds.
14
professional development and graduate course fees and costs for experienced teachers; and undergraduate loan forgiveness.
In compliance with FY 2017-18 Proviso 1A.59, CERRA submitted an Implementation Report to the Governor’s Office and the General Assembly in July 2018. All districts requested funds.
Table 3 Rural Recruitment Initiative Financial Detail, FY 2017-18 Amount Percent of Allocation EIA Appropriation $9,748,392 75.1 FY17 Carryover Funds $3,226,508 24.9 Total Available for FY2017-18 $12,974,900
Expenditures: Funds Disbursed directly to $11,869,319 91.4 Districts Funds Disbursed on behalf of $149,909 1.2 Districts Funds Disbursed to Teachers 5.1 for Loan Forgiveness $662,225 Administrative Costs $293,447 2.3 Carry Forward Funds $0 0 TOTAL $12,974,900 Source: CERRA, 2018
2018-19 Annual Teacher Supply and Demand Survey
Since 2001, the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement (CERRA) at Winthrop University has conducted an annual Teacher/Administrator Supply and Demand Survey.9 CERRA surveys each school district as well as the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Palmetto Unified School District and the South Carolina Public Charter School District to determine the number of authorized and filled teaching positions. There were similar total number of allocated positions in 2017-18 and 2018-19, but the data show a slight decrease of one percent due to additional factors: two districts did not complete a survey for the 2018-19 school year five additional schools were included in the Charter Institute at Erskine and certain CATE centers were asked to submit a survey.10
9 South Carolina Annual Educator Supply and Demand Report, January 2019. May be accessed at https://www.cerra.org/supply-and-demand.html. 10 South Carolina Annual Educator Supply and Demand Report, January 2019, p.2. May be accessed at https://www.cerra.org/uploads/1/7/6/8/17684955/2017-18_supply_demand_report.pdf.
15
Table 4 reports the percent of new teacher hires who graduated from state teacher education programs increased slightly from 21 percent in 2017-18 to 21.6 percent in 2018-19. Like 2017- 18, in 2018-19, 32 percent of the hires came from another state, new graduates from teacher education programs in other states, or alternative certification programs (Table 4).
Table 4 Sources of New Teacher Hires Percent in Percent in Percent in Percent in Percent in Percent in 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 New Graduates from Teacher Education 21.6 21.0 24.7 29 32 36 Programs in SC Transferred from one district, charter school or 31 30.9 33.5 31 27 28 special school in SC to another district Hired from another state11 16 16.9 15.3 15 15 14 New Graduates from Teacher Education 7.5 7.2 6.4 7 8 9 Programs in Other States Alternative Certification 8.5 7.4 6.2 5 6 5 Programs12 Inactive Teachers Who 4.0 5.2 3 4 4 Returned to Teaching13 4.7 From Outside US 5 4.8 3.7 3 2 2 Other Teachers14 7.1 4.9 2 6 2 Source: CERRA, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 Supply and Demand Survey Reports.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the most recent supply and demand reports released by CERRA. Of the 5,341.3 teachers who did not return to any teaching position, there were only 1,642 graduates who completed a South Carolina teacher education program, accounting for only 30.1 percent of the total number who left teaching. The number of in-state graduates also continues to decrease, from a high of 2,060 in 2014-15 to a new low graduation number of 1,642 in 2018-19. This represents a twenty percent decrease of in-state teacher education program graduates. Graph 1 provides historical detail about the number of teachers who did not return to the classroom, and the number of non-returning teachers continues to grow. The Supply and Demand Survey indicates 26.3 percent of teachers (approximately 1,937.3 teachers) who left
11 Includes current teachers from other states. 12 Includes teachers from PACE, ABCTE, Adjunct Teaching Certificate, Teach for America, American Board, Teachers for Tomorrow and district-based alternative certification programs. 13South Carolina Annual Educator Supply and Demand Report, January 2019. Survey defines as “South Carolina teacher who returned to teaching after a gap in service of more than a year,” p. 10. 14 Includes teachers from a college/university or private school in South Carolina, newly certified teachers in career and technology and “other” teachers as indicated by CERRA.
16
during or at the end of the 2017-18 school year “retired for the first time, were retirees not rehired by the district, or their Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive (TERI) period ended.”15 Furthermore, the number of certified teachers who did not return after one year or less of teaching increased by 60 percent from 585 in 2017-18 to 936 in 2018-19.
15South Carolina Annual Educator Supply and Demand Report, January 2019, p. 12.
17
Table 5 Key Data from CERRA’s Supply and Demand Reports School Years 2012 through 2017 Number of Number of Number of Number of certified graduates who certified teachers certified School teachers who completed a SC who did not teachers who year did not return teacher return after five did not return to any teaching education or fewer years of after one year or position16 program teaching less of teaching 2,060 2014-2015 4,108.1 1,796.5 529.7 (2013-14) 1,793 2015-2016 4,074.3 2,807.4 579.6 (2014-15) 1,720 2016-2017 4,842.1 2,465.4 616.2 (2015-16) 1,684 2017-2018 4,914.1 2,564.25 585.0 (2016-17) 1,642 2018-2019 5,341.3 2,596.1 935.7 (2017-18) Source: Center for Educator Recruitment Retention and Advancement.
Graph 1 Number of Teachers Who Did Not Return to Teaching (by School Year) 6,000.00 5,341.30 4,842.10 4,914.10 5,000.00 4,108.10 4,074.30 4,000.00
3,000.00
2,000.00 Number of Teachers Number
1,000.00
0.00 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-19 School Year
16 These data exclude teachers who left to teach in another South Carolina public school district or special school.
18
III. Overview of the South Carolina Teacher Loan Program
This section provides an overview of program funding and details the identification of educators in critical geographic areas and critical subject areas throughout the state who are eligible for the South Carolina Teacher Loan Program.
Funding of the SC Teacher Loan Program
With revenues from the Education Improvement Act Trust Fund, the General Assembly appropriated monies to support the Teacher Loan Program. Section 59-26-20 codified the Teacher Loan Program; see Appendix A for further detail. Table 6 documents the amounts appropriated and expended over the past nine fiscal years. In 2017-18, 14.2 percent of all funds expended for the program were spent on administration, a 7.8 percent increase from 2016-17. About $4.37 million was loaned, representing a modest 3.7 percent decrease from the prior year. The FY 2017-18 appropriation budget allowed for increased administrative costs due to a one- time conversion of servicing, but the conversion did not happen until FY 2018-19. The increased cost is a one-time conversion fee to Firstmark, the new loan servicer. After the one-time fee is paid, Firstmark will charge monthly fees for servicing the loans.
The Revolving Loan Fund includes monies collected by the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation from individuals who do not qualify for cancellation. Historically, monies in the Revolving Loan Fund have been utilized to augment funding for the Teacher Loan Program to fund Teacher Loan Program loan applications. However, for the past four fiscal years, funds in the Revolving Loan Fund have not been expended to provide loans. At the end of Fiscal Year 2015-16, the balance in the Revolving Loan Fund was $22,070,408. At the end of Fiscal Year 2016-17 the balance decreased to $8,240,638, representing a 63 percent decrease from the prior year. The decrease resulted from the state reallocating $16,000,000 from the revolving account for the Abbeville Equity School Districts Capital Improvement Plan.17 The ending balance in the revolving fund account as of June 30, 2018 was $8,642,917.60.
No funds were used from the Revolving Loan Fund to supplement the EIA appropriation. In Fiscal Year 2017-18, the total expenditures for loans and administrative costs to the Teacher Loan Program equaled the EIA appropriation. The total amount of monies loaned in 2017-18 was $4,369,461. Not all eligible loans were funded. The South Carolina Student Loan Corporation does not interpret its current role to have the authority to utilize revolving funds from pervious loan repayments to fund the current year loans. Due to the timing of the loan approval process, the Student Loan Corporation funds half of the loans it approves so funds may be approved so the financial aid packages for students may be completed in a timely manner before the beginning of the academic year.18
17 Proviso 1A.82 of the 2017-18 General Appropriation Act. 18 E-mail communication with Student Loan Corporation, April 17, 2019.
19
Table 6 SC Teacher Loan Program: Revenues and Loans from 2009-2018 Percent of Legislatively Revolving Total Total Dollars EIA Mandated Administrative Amount Year Funds from Dollars Spent on Appropriation Transfers or Costs Loaned Repayments Available Admin- Reductions istration 2009-10 $4,000,722 0 $3,000,000 $7,000,722 $360,619 5.2 $6,640,103 2010-11 $4,000,722 0 $1,000,000 $5,000,722 $345,757 6.9 $4,654,965 2011-12 $4,000,722 0 $1,000,000 $5,000,722 $359,201 7.2 $4,641,521 2012-13 $4,000,722 0 $1,000,000 $5,000,722 $351,958 7.0 $5,648,764 2013-14 $5,089,881 0 $0 $5,089,881 $329,971 6.2 $4,517,984 2014-15 $5,089,881 0 $0 $5,089,881 $317,145 6.2 $4,594,799 2015-16 $5,089,881 0 $0 $5,089,881 $319,450 6.2 $4,460,184 2016-17 $5,089,881 0 $0 $5,089,881 $326,460 6.4 $4,540,310 2017-18 $5,089,881 0 $0 $5,089,881 $720,420 14.2 $4,369,461 Source: South Carolina Student Loan Corporation, April 2019
Critical Need Identification
The South Carolina Teacher Loan Program allows borrowers to have portions of their loan indebtedness forgiven by teaching in certain critical geographic and subject areas. The State Board of Education (SBE) is also responsible for determining areas of critical need: “Areas of critical need shall include both rural areas and areas of teacher certification and shall be defined annually for that purpose by the State Board of Education.” 19 Beginning in the fall of 1984, the SBE defined the certification and geographic areas considered critical and subsequently those teaching assignments eligible for cancellation. Only two subject areas, mathematics and science, were designated critical during the early years of the programs, but teacher shortages in subsequent years expanded the number of certification areas.
To determine the subject areas, the South Carolina Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention and Advancement (CERRA) conducts a Supply and Demand Survey of all regular school districts, the South Carolina Public Charter School District, Palmetto Unified, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the South Carolina School for the Deaf and the Blind. CERRA publishes an annual report documenting the number of: teacher positions, teachers hired; teachers leaving; and vacant teacher positions. The survey results are provided to the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE). Table 7 shows the number of certified, vacant teaching positions during the 2018-19 school year. SCDE then determines the number of teaching positions available in the school year that were vacant or filled with candidates not fully certified in the particular subject area. Subject areas with the most vacancies remained consistent from the 2017-18 school year
19 Section 59-26-20(j) accessed at: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/query.php?search=DOC&searchtext=Teacher%20Loan%20Program&cate gory=CODEOFLAWS&conid=8504971&result_pos=0&keyval=7259&numrows=10
20
to the 2018-19 school year. Both early childhood/elementary and Special Education remained the top two content areas with most vacancies. However, as a percentage of total vacancies, the early childhood/elementary vacancies decreased by seven percent to 17 percent in the 2018- 19 school year. Mathematics continues to be the area with the third highest number of vacancies, especially in middle and high school levels. Additional subject areas with relatively high levels of vacancies are English language arts, music and speech language therapy. Overall the number of vacancies decreased by 71.75 positions from the 2017-18 school year to the 2018- 19 school year, representing a 13 percent decrease.
21
Table 7 Certified, Vacant Teaching Positions by Academic Level for School Year 2018-1920 Primary/ Certification Area Taught Middle High Total Elementary
Special Education 47.5 31.5 26 105
Early Childhood/Elementary 99 99 (any or all core subjects) Mathematics 19.5 45 64.5 English/Language Arts 18.75 39.25 58 Sciences 19.75 25.25 45 Social Studies 17 15.5 32.5 Music 12.33 7.33 7.59 27.25 Physical Education 8.5 3.5 15.25 27.25 Art 14.33 8.58 4.09 27 Speech Language Therapist 23.5 3 1 27.5 (includes contracted FTEs) Media Specialist 14.5 4 1.5 20 World Languages 4 3 16 23 CATE (Career & Technology 3 11.5 14.5 subjects) Guidance 2.5 2 5 9.5 Business/Marketing/ Computer 4.5 4.5 9 Technology English for Speakers of Other 3 1 3 7 Languages (ESOL) Health 0.5 1.5 3.5 5.5 Literacy 3 1 0.5 4.5 Theater 1 0.25 2 3.25 Dance 1 1.5 2.5 Agriculture 2 2 Gifted & Talented 2 2 Montessori 1 1 2 Driver’s Education 1.5 1.5 Industrial Technology 1 1 Other 1 1 Family & Consumer Science 0 TOTAL 237.66 150.16 233.43 621.25
20 CERRA, South Carolina Annual Educator Supply and Demand Report, January 2019, p. 14.
22
Table 8 shows the critical need subject areas since 2014-15 for primary/elementary, middle and high schools as also reported by CERRA. The certification areas with the highest vacancies and the content areas identified as critical needs are aligned. Table 8 shows Special Education vacancies were the highest; this certification area was identified as the third most needed critical need area in 2018-19, shown in Table 9. Secondary subjects were identified as the highest critical need subject areas in 2018-19, and vacancies in the 2018-19 school year were in the five highest areas of vacancies.
Table 8 Critical Need Subject Areas by School Year21 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Early Childhood/ Special Education Secondary Elementary Mathematics, Special Education – All Secondary Sciences 1 Business Education Areas (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Science), Secondary English Secondary Areas Media Specialist Special Early Childhood/ (Mathematics, 2 Theatre Education Elementary Sciences, English)
Media Specialist Industrial Mathematics Mathematics Special Education (all 3 Technology (middle and (middle and high) Speech Language areas) Education high) All Middle Level Areas Spanish, French, Latin, (Language Arts, German, English as a 4 Foreign Languages Sciences Sciences Mathematics, Science, second language, Social Studies) Chinese Social Studies; English/ Family & Consumer Speech Language Arts Science (Home 5 Media Specialist Arts Language Economics) Therapist Middle-Level areas English/ Speech Language Career and Business/Marketing/ (language arts, Language Arts Therapist Technology Computer Technology 6 mathematics, science, social studies) Science (Biology, Music Media Specialist Theatre Business/Marketing/ 7 Chemistry, Physics, Computer Technology and Science)
21 Ranked in order of greatest number of certified teaching positions reported as vacant at the beginning of the 2018-19 school year. CERRA, Annual Educator Supply and Demand Report, January 2019, p. 12.
23
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Media Specialist Art Middle Level Social Family/Consumer Family/Consumer Studies, Math, 8 Science Science Language Arts, Science 9 Agriculture Literacy Music Literacy Art, Dance, Music Foreign Health Art Languages 10 Music Health (Russian (15.5) & Spanish (2.0)) Foreign Career and Social Studies English as a Second Languages Technology 11 Gifted and Talented Language (French (2.0) & Services (CATE) Spanish (11.0)) Foreign Languages Literacy English as a Gifted and (Spanish, French, 12 Secondary English Second Talented Latin, German, Language Russian, Chinese, Japanese) Secondary Guidance Social Studies Speech Language 13 Mathematics Therapists Physical School Industrial Technology Special Education Education; Psychologist Education 14 All Areas School Psychologist Business/ English as a Physical Education Computer Marketing/ Second Language 15 Programming Computer Technology Source: SC Student Loan Corporation, April 2019.
The criteria used in designating critical geographic schools have evolved over time. The SC State Board of Education (SBE) has considered multiple factors, including degree of wealth, distance from shopping and entertainment centers, and faculty turnover. For the 2000-01 school year, the SBE adopted the criteria established for the federally-funded Perkins Loan Program as the criteria for determining critical need schools. The Perkins Loan Program used student participation rates in the federal free and reduced-price lunch program to determine schools eligible for loan forgiveness and included special schools, alternative schools, and correctional centers. Section 59-26-20(j) was amended in 2006 to redefine geographic critical need schools to be: (1) schools with an absolute rating of Below Average or At-Risk/Unsatisfactory; (2) schools with an average teacher turnover rate for the past three years of 20 percent or higher; and (3) schools with a poverty index of 70 percent or higher. Table 9 documents the number of geographic critical need schools in South Carolina for 2017-18.
24
In 2017-18 there were 821 schools that were classified as critical geographic need schools. Prior years are not reported because the calculation of critical geographic need schools changed, and schools received ratings in 2018 for the first time in three years.
In 2015-16, there was a change in the federal method for determining the poverty index from free/reduced to the federal Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). CEP is a universal meal plan that allows eligible districts and school to provide meal serve to all students at no charge regardless of economic status. To be eligible to participate a district, school or a group of schools from the same district must have a directly certified identified student percentage of at least 40 percent. Under the Community Eligibility Provision, school districts must identify alternative methods for assessing the income level of students served by a school, which has resulted in a shift in the number of districts and schools that qualify due to their poverty index. In South Carolina the Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office calculates the new poverty index for schools and districts using data regarding family participation in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and other factors like homelessness.
Table 9 Critical Geographic Need Schools Number of Qualifying Schools by Type Number of Qualifying Schools by Criterion Year Cancellation Total Career Primary Elementary Middle High Absolute Teacher Poverty Year Number Centers Rating Turnover Index of Schools 2017- 2019-20 821 0 53 439 213 116 339 374 636 18 Source: SC Department of Education, April 2019. Note: Under “Type of School,” some schools may be designated in more than one category.
25
26
IV. Applications to the Teacher Loan Program
Applications to the Teacher Loan Program remained steady in 2017-18. The number of applications approved decreased from 1,166 in 2016-17 to 1,132 in 2017-18 (Table 10). Of the 229 applications that were denied, the overriding reason for denial (36.2 percent) was due to the failure of the applicant to meet the academic grade point criteria.
Table 10 Status of Applicants Reason for Denial Total Academic Credit Inadequate No EEE Year Approved Cancelled Denied Other** Applied* Reason Problem Funds Praxis 2009-10 2,228 1,555 92 581 147 13 300 75 46 2010-11 1,717 1,114 97 506 89 4 308 72 33 2011-12 1,471 1,086 81 304 116 1 80 62 45 2012-13 1,472 1,112 85 275 134 1 37 64 39 2013-14 1,462 1,109 73 280 143 0 0 74 54 2014-15 1,448 1,130 66 252 144 1 3 67 37 2015-16 1,396 1,128 44 224 117 4 4 50 49 2016-17 1,401 1,166 31 204 101 0 0 62 41 2017-18 1,399 1,132 38 229 83 0 68 52 26 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education *This is a duplicated count of individuals because the same individuals may apply for loans in multiple years. **"Other" reasons include (1) not a SC resident, (2) enrollment less than half time, (3) ineligible critical area, (4) not seeking initial certification, (5) received the maximum annual and/or cumulative loan and (6) application in process.
Description of Applicants
In the 1990s, several states, including members of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), implemented policies to attract and retain minorities into the teaching force. South Carolina specifically implemented minority teacher recruitment programs at Benedict College and South Carolina State University. Currently, only the South Carolina Program for the Recruitment and Retention of Minority Teachers (SC-PRRMT) at South Carolina State University remains in operation. The General Assembly in 2017-18 appropriated by proviso $339,482 in EIA revenues to the program. SC-PRRMT promotes “teaching as a career choice by publicizing the many career opportunities and benefits in the field of education in the State of South Carolina. The mission of the Program is to increase the pool of teachers in the State by making education accessible to non-traditional students (teacher assistants, career path changers, and technical college transfer students) and by providing an academic support system to help students meet
27
entry, retention, and exit program requirements.”22 The program “also administers an EIA Forgivable Loan Program and participates in state, regional, and national teacher recruitment initiatives.” During FY 2018-19 the Call Me Mister Program is funded with $500,000 in EIA funds and is administered by Clemson University. 23
In 2003, the EIA and Improvement Mechanisms Subcommittee of the Education Oversight Committee requested that staff develop goals and objectives for the Teacher Loan Program. An advisory committee was formed with representatives from CERRA, SC Student Loan Corporation, the Division of Educator Quality and Leadership at the State Department of Education, and the Commission on Higher Education. After review of the data, the advisory committee recommended the following three goals and objectives for the Teacher Loan Program (TLP) in 2004.
The percentage of African American applicants and recipients of the TLP should mirror the percentage of African Americans in the South Carolina teaching force. The percentage of male applicants and recipients of the TLP should mirror the percentage of males in the South Carolina teaching force. Eighty percent of the individuals receiving loans each year under the TLP should enter the South Carolina teaching force. CERRA’s January 2018 and 2019 Supply and Demand Surveys were used to compare the demographic information of applicants to the Teacher Loan Program with new teacher hires in the state. Tables 11 and 12 show trends in the distribution of applicants by gender and race/ethnicity. Historically, applicants for the program have been overwhelmingly white and/or female. This trend continued in 2017-18 with 80.4 percent of all applicants female and 81.2 percent white. Table 11 shows, the percentage of male applicants decreased for the third consecutive year to 16.7 percent, representing a 1.6 percent drop. The number of African American applicants did not align with the decrease in male applicants. Table 12 details a 1.3 percent increase in African American applicants from 2016-17 to 2017-18.
22 2018-19 EIA Program Report as provided to the EOC by the South Carolina Program for the Recruitment and Retention of Minority Teachers, September 28, 2018. Accessed at: http://www.eoc.sc.gov/reportsandpublications/Pages/2012-13EIAProgramReport.aspx 23 Ibid.
28
Table 11 Distribution of Applicants to the Teacher Loan Program by Gender # Year Applications Male % Female % Unknown % 2009-10 2,228 418 18.8 1,763 79.1 47 2.1 2010-11 1,717 316 18.4 1,324 77.1 77 4.5 2011-12 1,471 281 19.1 1,122 76.3 68 4.6 2012-13 1,472 244 16.6 1,168 79.3 60 4.1 2013-14 1,462 248 17.0 1,179 80.6 35 2.4 2014-15 1,448 262 18.0 1,155 79.8 31 2.1 2015-16 1,396 265 19.0 1,102 78.9 29 2.1 2016-17 1,401 254 18.1 1,114 79.5 33 2.4 2017-18 1,399 233 16.7 1,125 80.4 41 2.9 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
Table 12 Distribution of Applicants to the Teacher Loan Program by Race/Ethnicity Ethnicity # Year African American Other White Unknown Applications # % # % # % # % 2009-10 2,228 317 14.0 38 2.0 1,802 81.0 71 3.0 2010-11 1,717 228 13.0 35 2.0 1,373 80.0 81 5.0 2011-12 1,471 215 15.0 20 1.0 1,171 80.0 65 4.0 2012-13 1,472 242 16.0 23 2.0 1,149 78.0 58 4.0 2013-14 1,462 248 17.0 20 1.0 1,147 79.0 47 3.0 2014-15 1,448 234 16.0 24 2.0 1,149 79.0 41 3.0 2015-16 1,396 230 16.5 35 2.5 1,086 77.8 45 3.2 2016-17 1,401 141 11.8 30 2.5 996 83.5 26 2.2 2017-18 1,399 183 13.1 35 2.5 1,136 81.2 45 3.2 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
One approach to increase the supply of highly qualified teachers is school-to-college partnerships that introduce students early on to teaching as a career. In South Carolina the Teacher Cadet Program, which is coordinated by the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement (CERRA) at Winthrop University, has impacted the applicant pool. As reported by CERRA, the mission of the Teacher Cadet Program "is to encourage academically talented or capable students who possess exemplary interpersonal and leadership skills to consider teaching as a career. An important secondary goal of the program is to develop future community leaders who will become civic advocates of public education."24 Teacher Cadets must have at least a 3.0 average in a college preparatory curriculum, be recommended in writing by five teachers, and submit an essay on why they want to participate in the class.
24 CERRA Website, April 2019. Accessed at: https://www.teachercadets.com/.
29
Table 13 Distribution of Applicants to the Teacher Loan Program by Teacher Cadet Program Not Number Teacher Year Percent Teacher Percent Unknown Percent Applications Cadets Cadets 2009-10 2,228 811 36.0 1,352 61.0 65 3.0 2010-11 1,717 662 39.0 1,024 60.0 31 2.0 2011-12 1,471 601 41.0 830 56.0 40 3.0 2012-13 1,472 556 38.0 871 59.0 45 3.0 2013-14 1,462 597 41.0 843 58.0 22 2.0 2014-15 1,448 615 43.0 808 56.0 25 2.0 2015-16 1,396 600 43.0 769 55.1 27 1.9 2016-17 1,401 621 44.3 775 55.3 5 0.4 2017-18 1,399 666 47.6 723 51.7 10 .7 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Table 14 shows the number of applicants by academic level. In 2017-18, the number of freshman applicants increased by 6.1 percent. The number of continuing undergraduate applicants increased slightly by 1.6 percent. Since 2009-10, the percent of continuing undergraduates has increased steadily. However, in 2017-18 the overall percent of continuing undergraduates decreased by 3.3 percent. The percent of first semester graduates increased by 2.3 percent in 2017-18, while the percent of continuing graduates decreased by five percent. For both continuing undergraduates and graduates the total number of applications remained approximately the same in 2017-18.
30
Table 14 Distribution of Applicants to the Teacher Loan Program by Academic Level Academic Level Status Year Number Freshman Continuing 1st Semester Continuing Unknown Applied Undergrad Graduate Graduate Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 2009-10 2,228 404 18.0 1,370 61.0 204 9.0 207 9.0 43 2.0 2010-11 1,717 230 13.0 1,136 66.0 140 8.0 195 11.0 16 1.0 2011-12 1,471 246 17.0 961 65.0 112 8.0 140 10.0 12 1.0 2012-13 1,472 230 16.0 992 67.0 98 7.0 131 9.0 21 1.0 2013-14 1,462 263 18.0 974 67.0 96 7.0 113 8.0 16 1.0 2014-15 1,448 271 19.0 949 66.0 101 7.0 108 8.0 19 1.0 2015-16 1,396 245 17.6 919 65.8 103 7.4 107 7.7 22 1.6 2016-17 1,401 243 17.3 942 67.2 98 7.0 117 8.4 1 0.1 2017-18 1,399 327 23.4 894 63.9 130 9.3 48 3.4 0 0 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
31
32
V. Recipients of a South Carolina Teacher Loan
Table 10 indicated that of the 1,399 applications received in 2017-18, 1,132 or 80.9 percent, received a Teacher Loan. Table 15 details the distribution of loan recipients over time by academic level. A significant majority of the 983 recipients, about 86.8 percent, of the loan recipients were undergraduate students. Of the undergraduate recipients, about 51 percent were juniors or seniors in 2017-18. In the past nine years, the data show there is an annual decline in loan recipients between freshman and sophomore years. While the decline seemed to slow in 2015-16, attrition doubled from 41 students in 2016-17 to 82 students in 2017-18. There are two primary reasons sophomores may no longer qualify for the loan: their GPA is below a 2.5 and/or they have not passed the Praxis I test required for entrance into an education program. No data exist on how many of the applicants were rejected for not having passed or how many had simply not taken the exam. Either way, the applicant would not qualify for additional Teacher Loan Program loans until the Praxis I was passed.
Table 15 Distribution of Recipients of the Teacher Loan Program by Academic Level Status 5th Year 1st year 2nd Year 3+ Year Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors Undergrads Graduates Graduates Graduates 2009-10 286 165 362 452 48 157 76 9 2010-11 126 120 254 379 43 107 62 23 2011-12 191 109 292 312 22 122 37 1 2012-13 173 138 270 345 22 118 43 3 2013-14 191 138 279 341 17 111 30 2 2014-15 199 134 256 373 17 117 31 3 2015-16 177 165 248 369 10 122 33 4 2016-17 189 148 280 360 11 135 40 3 2017-18 236 154 255 338 21 94 32 2 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Table 16 compares the academic status of applicants to actual recipients in 2017-18. In general, the academic level of applicants reflects the academic level of recipients, with undergraduates representing about 88 percent of both applicants and recipients, and graduate students representing 12 percent.
Table 16 Comparisons by Academic Level of Applicants and Recipients, 2017-18 Undergraduate Graduate Unknown Total # % # % # % # Applicants 1,221 87.3 178 12.7 0 0 1,399 Recipients 1,004 88.7 128 11.3 0 0 1,132 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
33
Teacher Loan recipients attended 38 universities and colleges in 2017-18 of which 24 (about 63 percent) were South Carolina institutions with a physical campus in the state. For comparison purposes, the Commission on Higher Education reports there are 57 campuses of higher learning in South Carolina: 13 public senior institutions; 5 public two-year regional campuses in the USC system; 16 public technical colleges; 21 independent or private senior institutions; and 2 independent two-year- colleges.25 Table 17 documents the number of Teacher Loan recipients attending South Carolina public and private institutions.
Of these 1,132 Teacher Loan recipients in 2017-18, approximately 53 percent or 595 attended four South Carolina institutions: USC-Columbia, Winthrop University, Anderson University, and Clemson University. In the prior year, 2016-17, 618 Teacher Loan recipients attended these same four institutions. In 2016-17, there were 1,166 Teacher Loan recipients and 55 percent or 644 attended the following four institutions: USC-Columbia, Winthrop University, Anderson University and College of Charleston. 26
25 Commission on Higher Education, 2019. Accessed at: http://www.che.sc.gov/Students,FamiliesMilitary/LearningAboutCollege/SCCollegesUniversities.aspx. 26 Annual Report on the South Carolina Teacher Loan Program for Fiscal Year 2016-17. Published by EOC on June 11, 2018.
34
Table 17 Teacher Loan Recipients by Institution of Higher Education, 2017-18 Institution Number of Institution Number of Recipients Recipients American Public University System 1 Lander University 83 Anderson University 120 Liberty University 1 Appalachian State University 1 Limestone College 7 Ball State University 1 Mars Hill University 2 Charleston Southern University 19 Newberry College 22 The Citadel 12 North Greenville University 40 Clemson University 103 Presbyterian College 4 Coastal Carolina University 45 S.C. State University 1 Coker College 20 Southern Wesleyan University 21 College of Charleston 81 University of North Carolina 1 Columbia College 14 University of South Carolina-Columbia 196 Columbia International University 3 University of South Carolina – Upstate 50 Converse College 34 University of West Georgia 5 Erskine College 7 Walden University 1 Francis Marion University 47 Western Governors University 1 Furman University 4 Winthrop University 176 Gardner-Webb University 1 Wofford College 2 Horry Georgetown Technical College 2 Total 1,132 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Table 18 shows the number of loan recipients at historically African American institutions significantly decreased from 13 in 2016-17 to 1 in 2017-18.
35
Table 18 Teacher Loans to Students Attending Historically African American Institutions Institution 2017- 2016- 2015- 2014- 2013- 2012- 2011- 2010- 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 Benedict 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 College Claflin 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 University Morris 0 027 0 0 0 0 0 0 College S.C. State 1 10 7 7 14 11 11 9 University TOTAL: 1 13 7 7 14 11 12 9 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Recipients of the Teacher Loan Program also receive other state scholarships provided by the General Assembly to assist students in attending institutions of higher learning in South Carolina. The other scholarship programs include the Palmetto Fellows Program, the Legislative Incentive for Future Excellence (LIFE) Scholarships, and the HOPE Scholarships. The Palmetto Fellows Program, LIFE, and HOPE award scholarships to students based on academic achievement but are not directed to teacher recruitment.
Teaching Fellows
In 1999, the SC General Assembly funded the Teaching Fellows Program for South Carolina due to the shortage of teachers in the state. The mission of the South Carolina Teaching Fellows Program is to recruit talented high school seniors into the teaching profession and help them develop leadership qualities. Each year, the program provides Fellowships for up to 200 high school seniors who have exhibited high academic achievement, a history of service to their school and community, and a desire to teach in South Carolina.
Teaching Fellows participate in advanced enrichment programs at Teaching Fellows Institutions, have additional professional development opportunities, and are involved with communities and businesses throughout the state. They receive up to $24,000 in fellowship funds (up to $6,000 a year for four years) while they complete a degree leading to teacher licensure. The fellowship provides up to $5,700 for tuition and board and $300 for specific enrichment programs administered by CERRA. All Teaching Fellows awards are contingent upon funding from the S.C. General Assembly. A Fellow agrees to teach in a South Carolina public school one year for every year he or she receives the Fellowship. Each Fellow signs a promissory note that requires payment of the scholarship should they decide not to teach. In addition to being an award instead of a loan, the Teaching Fellows Program differs from the Teacher Loan Program in that recipients
27 Morris College data were not provided.
36
are not required to commit to teaching in a critical need subject or geographic area to receive the award.28
Working with the Commission on Higher Education, the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation, and the South Carolina Department of Education, specific data files from the three organizations were merged and cross-referenced to determine how the scholarship programs interact with the Teacher Loan Program. Table 19 shows over the last nine years the number of Teacher Loan recipients who also participated in the HOPE, LIFE, or Palmetto Fellows programs and who were later employed by public schools. There were 4,105 2017-18 loan recipients who were also LIFE, Palmetto Fellows or HOPE Scholarships recipients and employed in public schools in South Carolina, representing a 9.5 percent increase from 2016-17. Over the past nine years, the number has increased by about 94 percent.
Table 19 Loan Recipients serving in South Carolina schools who received LIFE, Palmetto, Fellows and HOPE Scholarships Palmetto Fiscal Year LIFE HOPE Total Fellows 2009-10 1,932 116 67 2,115 2010-11 2,097 145 93 2,335 2011-12 2,331 171 110 2,612 2012-13 2,582 188 125 2,895 2013-14 2,796 211 147 3,154 2014-15 2,980 232 165 3,377 2015-16 3,208 265 194 3,667 2016-17 3,285 262 202 3,749 2017-18 3,583 292 230 4,105 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
Policymakers also questioned how the state’s scholarship programs generally impact the number of students pursuing a teaching career in the state. Table 20 shows the total number of scholarship recipients each year. It is a duplicated count across years.
28 For more information, go to http://cerra.org/teachingfellows/programoverview.aspx.
37
Table 20 Total Number of Scholarship Recipients for the Fall Terms Year LIFE Palmetto HOPE Fellows 2009 31,607 5,894 2,716 2010 32,125 6,122 2,844 2011 32,600 6,410 2,853 2012 33,580 6,666 2,925 2013 34,378 6,818 3,185 2014 35,349 6,974 3,302 2015 36,532 7,171 3,505 2016 38,238 7,491 3,787 2017 40,117 8,107 3,444 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
Of these individuals receiving scholarships in the fall of 2017, about 8.4 percent of scholarship recipients had declared education as their intended major (Tables 21 and 22). There is a downward trend in the percentage of these talented students initially declaring education as a major. With the policy goal on improving the quality of teachers in classrooms, this data should be continuously monitored.
Table 21 Comparison of Scholarship Recipients and Education Majors, Fall 2017 Scholarship # of Education # of Scholarships Percent Majors HOPE 383 3,444 11.1 LIFE 3,464 40,116 8.6 Palmetto Fellows 477 8,107 5.9 Total 4,324 51,667 8.4 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
38
Table 22 Student Percentage Receiving Scholarships for each Fall Term and Declaring Education Major Palmetto Fall LIFE HOPE Total Fellows 2009 11.1 6.5 14.4 10.6 2010 11.0 6.7 12.7 10.5 2011 10.2 6.3 9.9 9.6 2012 9.6 6.0 13.2 9.3 2013 9.3 5.9 12.5 9.0 2014 9.3 5.7 11.1 8.9 2015 9.2 5.6 11.2 8.8 2016 9.1 6.0 11.5 8.8 2017 8.6 5.9 11.1 8.4 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
Average SAT scores of loan recipients and South Carolina students increased from 2009 through 2015. These scores reflect the mean for the critical reading and mathematics portions of the SAT (Table 23). If a student took the test more than once, the most recent score is used. Beginning with the 2016 administration of the SAT, significant changes were made to the test, including:
No penalty for wrong answers Revamped essay Evidence-focused reading Elimination of obscure vocabulary More graphs and charts and More great texts.29
Due to these changes, SAT scores in 2016 and in subsequent years should not be compared to prior years’ SAT scores. Changes to the test also changed the test scoring.
29 College Board Website, 2019. Accessed at https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/inside-the- test/compare-old-new-specifications.
39
Table 23 Mean SAT Scores30 Teacher Loan Year South Carolina Program Recipients 2009 1,091.4 982 2010 1,107.0 979 2011 1,153.8 972 2012 1,181.4 969 2013 1,220.4 971 2014 1,245.5 978 2015 1,268.4 975 2016 1,285.8 987 2017 1,244.4 1,064 Source: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Repayment or Cancellation Status
South Carolina Student Loan Corporation reports that as of June 30, 2018, 19,552 loans were in a repayment or cancellation status. The following table is a comprehensive list of the status of all borrowers:
Table 24 Borrowers as of June 30, 2018 Number of Percent of Status Borrowers Borrowers Never eligible for cancellation and are repaying loan 2,447 12.5 Previously taught but not currently teaching 785 4.0 Teaching and having loans cancelled 983 5.0 Have loans paid out through monthly payments, loan 8,613 44.1 consolidation or partial cancellation Loan discharged due to death, disability or bankruptcy 128 0.6 In Default 91 0.5 Loans cancelled 100% by fulfilling teaching requirement 6,505 33.3 TOTAL 19,552 Source: South Carolina Student Loan Corporation, April 2019
Teacher Loan Program Recipients Employed in Public Schools of South Carolina
Data files from South Carolina Student Loan Corporation and South Carolina Department of Education were merged and analyzed to provide more information about current South Carolina
30 The composite score is the sum of the Critical Reading score average and the Mathematics score average (2009-2015).
40
public school employees who received teacher loans. There were 8,383 Teacher Loan recipients employed by public schools in 2017-18, representing an increase of 423 employed recipients from 2016-17 (Table 25). Like the applicants, the Teacher Loan recipients who were employed in South Carolina’s public schools were overwhelmingly White and female (Tables 11 and 12). These 7,960 individuals served in a variety of positions in 2017-18, detailed in Table 26.
Table 25 Loan Recipients in South Carolina Schools by Gender and Ethnicity, 2017-18 Gender Number Percent Male 1,107 13.2 Female 7,221 86.1 Unknown 55 .7 Total 8,383
Ethnicity Number Percent African American 1,116 13.3 White 7,052 84.1 Asian 23 .3 Hispanic 54 .6 American Indian 5 .1 Unknown 133 1.6 Total 8,383 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
41
Table 26 Loan Recipients Employed in SC Public Schools as of 2017-18 by Position Position Position Description Number Description Number Code Code Director, 1 Principal 184 22 1 Finance/Business Assistant Principal, Co- 2 274 23 Career Specialist 11 principal Technology/IT 3 Special Education (Itinerant) 21 27 7 Personnel Prekindergarten (Child 4 187 28 Director, Personnel 9 Development) Other Personnel 5 Kindergarten 341 29 2 Positions Special Education (Self- Director, Alternative 6 398 31 2 Contained) Program/School Special Education 7 512 33 Director, Technology 4 (Resource) Coordinator, Federal 8 Classroom Teacher 5,145 35 9 Projects 9 Retired Teachers 11 36 School Nurse 1 Occupational/Physical 10 Library Media Specialist 329 37 2 Therapist Orientation/Mobility 11 Guidance Counselor 171 38 1 Instructor Other Professional 12 158 40 Social Worker 1 Instruction-Oriented Director, Career & Director, Student 13 5 41 3 Technology Education Ctr. Services Assistant Director, Career & Other Professional 14 5 43 18 Technology Education Noninstructional Staff 15 Coordinator, Job Placement 2 44 Teacher Specialist 9 16 Director, Adult Education 4 45 Principal Specialist 1 Purchased-Service 17 Speech Therapist 171 46 2 Teacher Supervisor, District 47 Director, Athletics 2 80 1 Library Media Services Assistant Superintendent, 48 6 81 Coordinator, Guidance 2 Noninstructional Coordinator, Assistant Superintendent, 49 4 83 Parenting/Family 1 Instruction Literacy
42
Position Position Description Number Description Number Code Code Coordinator, 50 District Superintendent 5 84 2 Elementary Education 53 Director, Instruction 9 85 Psychologist 14 Supervisor, Elementary 54 2 86 Support Personnel 3 Education Supervisor, Secondary 55 1 87 Reading Coach 107 Education 58 Director, Special Services 13 88 Vacant 9 Title I Instructional 62 Coordinator, Fine Arts 1 89 5 Paraprofessional 65 Coordinator, English 1 90 Library Aide 2 Child Development 66 Coordinator, Reading 3 91 2 Aide Coordinator, Health/Science 68 1 92 Kindergarten Aide 4 Technology Coordinator, Health, Safety, 69 1 93 Special Education Aide 21 PE 72 Coordinator, Mathematics 3 94 Instructional Aide 10 74 Coordinator, Science 2 97 Instructional Coach 76 Adult Education 75 Educational Evaluator 2 98 5 Teacher Coordinator, Special Other District Office 78 21 99 1 Education Staff Grand Total 8,383 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
In summary, about 61 percent of the recipient graduates was employed in public schools as regular classroom teachers; eleven percent worked in special education capacities (in either itinerant, self-contained or resource environments), and another five percent in four-year-old child development and kindergarten classes (Table 27).
43
Table 27 Loan Recipients Employed in Public Schools by Positions, 2017-18 Position Code Description # Positions Percent 04 Prekindergarten 87 1.04 05 Kindergarten 341 4.07 03, 06, 07 Special Education 931 11.11 08 Classroom Teachers 5,145 61.37 10 Library Media Specialist 329 3.92 11 Guidance Counselor 171 2.04 17 Speech Therapist 171 2.04 All Others Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors, 1,208 14.41 Coordinators, etc. Total 8,383 Note: Due to rounding the total percent amount exceeds 100.0.
Table 28 documents the primary area of certification of all Teacher Loan recipients who were employed in public schools in 2017-18. The primary certification area was elementary education, accounting for about 42 percent of loan recipients. Early childhood education accounted for almost an additional 12 percent of loan recipients.
Table 28 Loan Recipients Employed in SC Public Schools in 2017-18 by Primary Certification Area Number Number Code Certification Subject Certified Code Certification Subject Certified Teachers Teachers 1 Elementary 3,513 53 Music Education Voice 3 Special Education- 2 Generic Special 124 54 Music Education Instrumental 99 Education* Speech-Language 3 162 58 Dance 13 Therapist 4 English 423 60 Media Specialist 109 5 French 36 63 Driver Training 8 6 Latin 2 64 Health 1 7 Spanish 81 67 Physical Education 124 8 German 3 70 Superintendent 3 10 Mathematics 516 71 Elementary Principal* 20 11 General Mathematics* 2 72 Secondary Principal* 4 12 Science 176 78 School Psychologist III 1 13 General Science* 11 80 Reading Teacher* 2 14 Biology 54 84 School Psychologist II 5 15 Chemistry 13 85 Early Childhood 1,020 16 Physics 2 86 Guidance Elementary 50 20 Social Studies 189 89 Guidance Secondary 13
44
Number Number Code Certification Subject Certified Code Certification Subject Certified Teachers Teachers 21 History 6 Unknown/Not Reported 25 26 Psychology 1A Middle School Language Arts* 2 Industrial Technology 29 7 1B Middle School Mathematics* 2 Education 30 Agriculture 8 1C Middle School Science* 2 Family and Consumer 35 Science (Home 12 1D Middle School Social Studies* 5 Economics) 40 Commerce* 1 1E Middle-Level Language Arts 153 47 Business Education* 40 1F Middle-Level Mathematics 154 49 Advanced Fine Arts 1 1G Middle-Level Science 57 50 Art 149 1H Middle-Level Social Studies 141 51 Music Education Choral 61 Special Education- 2A Educable Mentally 86 4C Online Teaching 4 Disabled* Special Education- English for Speakers of Other 2B Education of the Blind & 5 5A 9 Languages (new name) Visually Impaired Special Education – 2C Trainable Mentally 4 5C Theater 8 Disabled Special Education – 2D Education of Deaf & Hard 4 5E Literacy Coach 2 of Hearing Special Education – 2E 119 5G Literacy Teacher 23 Emotional Disabilities Special Education- 2G 227 7B Elementary Principal Tier I 59 Learning Disabilities Special Education – 2H 35 7C Secondary Principal Tier I 2 Intellectual Disabilities Special Education – Multi- Montessori-Early Childhood 2I 133 8B 1 Categorical Education Special Education – Health Science Technology (new 2J 2 AC 2 Severe Disabilities name) Special Education-Early 2K 22 AV Electricity 1 Childhood Education Business and Marketing 4B 25 BF Small Engine Repair 1 Technology Grand Total 8,383 Source: SC Commission on Higher Education
45
46
VI. SC Teacher Loan Advisory Committee
Proviso 1A.9 of the 2013-14 General Appropriations Act created the South Carolina Teacher Loan Advisory Committee (Committee). Provisos in the annual general appropriation act have maintained the existence of the Committee. The Committee is charged with: (1) establishing goals for the Teacher Loan Program; (2) facilitating communication among the cooperating agencies; (3) advocating for program participants; and (4) recommending policies and procedures necessary to promote and maintain the program.31
Working with the Committee are Marcella Wine-Snyder, CERRA Pre-Collegiate Program Director, and Dr. Jennifer Garrett, CERRA Coordinator of Research and Program Development, and Ray Jones, Vice President for Loan Programs at SC Student Loan Corporation. Serving on the Committee between Fall 2017 and Spring 2018, Fiscal Year 2017-18, were the following individuals and the institutions they represent:
Dr. Larry Daniel, The Citadel, representing a public education institution with a teacher education program Dr. Damara Hightower, Benedict College, representing a private institution with a teacher education program Dr. Zona Jefferson, SC Alliance of Black School Educators Doug Jenkins, Georgetown County School District, representing the Personnel Division of the SC Association of School Administrators (SCASA) Dr. Roy Jones, Clemson University, representing the Call Me Mister Program Dr. Tim Newman, Orangeburg County School District Four, representing the Superintendent Division of SCASA Trey Simon, SC Student Loan Corporation Patti Tate, York County School District Three, representing the Education Oversight Committee Jane Turner, Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention and Advancement (CERRA) Dr. Sharon Wall, SC State Board of Education Dr. Alicia Williams, McCormick County School District, representing SC School Guidance Counselors Dr. Karen Woodfaulk, SC Commission on Higher Education.
The position representing the SC Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators remains vacant.
The Committee normally meets three times a year. During 2017-18, the Committee continued to pursue legislative action on the Committee’s recommended changes to the Teacher Loan
31 Proviso 1A.9. of the 2013-14 General Appropriation Act.
47
Program, following adoption of the recommendations by the SC Commission on Higher Education (CHE) in December 2017. Those recommendations were as follows: increase the loan amount to $7,500 for the junior and senior years while enrolled in a teacher education program, as well as when enrolled in a Master of Arts in Teaching program; base loan eligibility for the freshman and sophomore years solely on a declared intent to seek a teacher education degree; for future loan program participants, provide loan forgiveness to all who go on to teach in a SC public school, regardless of what school they teach in and what subject they teach, and set the loan forgiveness rate at 33.3% for each completed year of teaching; provide loan forgiveness at the 33.3% rate for all loan recipients who are currently teaching in a SC public school, regardless of the teacher’s subject or school; and replace all references to the SC Student Loan Corporation to language referencing an approved vendor.
Based on advice from House and Senate Education Committee staff, the Committee drafted and submitted a legislative proviso to CHE. No action was taken on the proviso during 2017-18 so the Committee submitted a formal request to CHE in June 2018 requesting that CHE pursue adoption of the proviso during 2018-19. A copy of the request and proviso are attached (Appendix C).
48
Appendix A: Teacher Loan Fund Program
SECTION 59-26-20. Duties of State Board of Education and Commission on Higher Education.
The State Board of Education, through the State Department of Education, and the Commission on Higher Education shall: (a) develop and implement a plan for the continuous evaluation and upgrading of standards for program approval of undergraduate and graduate education training programs of colleges and universities in this State; (b) adopt policies and procedures which result in visiting teams with a balanced composition of teachers, administrators, and higher education faculties; (c) establish program approval procedures which shall assure that all members of visiting teams which review and approve undergraduate and graduate education programs have attended training programs in program approval procedures within two years prior to service on such teams; (d) render advice and aid to departments and colleges of education concerning their curricula, program approval standards, and results on the examinations provided for in this chapter; (e) adopt program approval standards so that all colleges and universities in this State that offer undergraduate degrees in education shall require that students successfully complete the basic skills examination that is developed in compliance with this chapter before final admittance into the undergraduate teacher education program. These program approval standards shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) A student initially may take the basic skills examination during his first or second year in college. (2) Students may be allowed to take the examination no more than four times. (3) If a student has not passed the examination, he may not be conditionally admitted to a teacher education program after December 1, 1996. After December 1, 1996, any person who has failed to achieve a passing score on all sections of the examination after two attempts may retake for a third time any test section not passed in the manner allowed by this section. The person shall first complete a remedial or developmental course from a post-secondary institution in the subject area of any test section not passed and provide satisfactory evidence of completion of this required remedial or developmental course to the State Superintendent of Education. A third administration of the examination then may be given to this person. If the person fails to pass the examination after the third attempt, after a period of three years, he may take the examination or any sections not passed for a fourth time under the same terms and conditions provided by this section of persons desiring to take the examination for a third time. Provided, that in addition to the above approval standards, beginning in 1984-85, additional and upgraded approval standards must be developed, in consultation with the Commission on Higher Education, and promulgated by the State Board of Education for these teacher education programs. (f) administer the basic skills examination provided for in this section three times a year;
49
(g) report the results of the examination to the colleges, universities, and student in such form that he will be provided specific information about his strengths and weaknesses and given consultation to assist in improving his performance; (h) adopt program approval standards so that all colleges and universities in this State that offer undergraduate degrees in education shall require that students pursuing courses leading to teacher certification successfully complete one semester of student teaching and other field experiences and teacher development techniques directly related to practical classroom situations; (i) adopt program approval standards whereby each student teacher must be evaluated and assisted by a representative or representatives of the college or university in which the student teacher is enrolled. Evaluation and assistance processes shall be locally developed or selected by colleges or universities in accordance with State Board of Education regulations. Processes shall evaluate and assist student teachers based on the criteria for teaching effectiveness developed in accordance with this chapter. All college and university representatives who are involved in the evaluation and assistance process shall receive appropriate training as defined by State Board of Education regulations. The college or university in which the student teacher is enrolled shall make available assistance, training, and counseling to the student teacher to overcome any identified deficiencies; (j) the Commission on Higher Education, in consultation with the State Department of Education and the staff of the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation, shall develop a loan program in which talented and qualified state residents may be provided loans to attend public or private colleges and universities for the sole purpose and intent of becoming certified teachers employed in the State in areas of critical need. Areas of critical need shall include both geographic areas and areas of teacher certification and must be defined annually for that purpose by the State Board of Education. The definitions used in the federal Perkins Loan Program shall serve as the basis for defining “critical geographical areas”, which shall include special schools, alternative schools, and correctional centers as identified by the State Board of Education. The recipient of a loan is entitled to have up to one hundred percent of the amount of the loan plus the interest canceled if he becomes certified and teaches in an area of critical need. Should the area of critical need in which the loan recipient is teaching be reclassified during the time of cancellation, the cancellation shall continue as though the critical need area had not changed. Additionally, beginning with the 2000-2001 school year, a teacher with a teacher loan through the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation shall qualify, if the teacher is teaching in an area newly designated as a critical needs area (geographic or subject, or both). Previous loan payments will not be reimbursed. The Department of Education and the local school district are responsible for annual distribution of the critical needs list. It is the responsibility of the teacher to request loan cancellation through service in a critical needs area to the Student Loan Corporation by November first. Beginning July 1, 2000, the loan must be canceled at the rate of twenty percent or three thousand dollars, whichever is greater, of the total principal amount of the loan plus interest on the unpaid balance for each complete year of teaching service in either an academic critical need area or in a geographic need area. The loan must be canceled at the rate of thirty-three and one-third percent, or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater, of the total principal amount of the loan plus interest on the unpaid balance for each complete year of teaching service in both an
50
academic critical need area and a geographic need area. Beginning July 1, 2000, all loan recipients teaching in the public schools of South Carolina but not in an academic or geographic critical need area are to be charged an interest rate below that charged to loan recipients who do not teach in South Carolina. Additional loans to assist with college and living expenses must be made available for talented and qualified state residents attending public or private colleges and universities in this State for the sole purpose and intent of changing careers in order to become certified teachers employed in the State in areas of critical need. These loan funds also may be used for the cost of participation in the critical needs certification program pursuant to Section 59-26-30(A)(8). Such loans must be cancelled under the same conditions and at the same rates as other critical need loans. In case of failure to make a scheduled repayment of an installment, failure to apply for cancellation of deferment of the loan on time, or noncompliance by a borrower with the intent of the loan, the entire unpaid indebtedness including accrued interest, at the option of the commission, shall become immediately due and payable. The recipient shall execute the necessary legal documents to reflect his obligation and the terms and conditions of the loan. The loan program, if implemented, pursuant to the South Carolina Education Improvement Act, is to be administered by the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation. Funds generated from repayments to the loan program must be retained in a separate account and utilized as a revolving account for the purpose that the funds were originally appropriated. Appropriations for loans and administrative costs incurred by the corporation are to be provided in annual amounts, recommended by the Commission on Higher Education, to the State Treasurer for use by the corporation. The Education Oversight Committee shall review the loan program annually and report to the General Assembly. Notwithstanding another provision of this item: (1) For a student seeking loan forgiveness pursuant to the Teacher Loan Program after July 1, 2004, “critical geographic area” is defined as a school that: (a) has an absolute rating of below average or unsatisfactory; (b) has an average teacher turnover rate for the past three years that is twenty percent or higher; or (c) meets the poverty index criteria at the seventy percent level or higher. (2) After July 1, 2004, a student shall have his loan forgiven based on those schools or districts designated as critical geographic areas at the time of employment. (3) The definition of critical geographic area must not change for a student who has a loan, or who is in the process of having a loan forgiven before July 1, 2004. (k) for special education in the area of vision, adopt program approval standards for initial certification and amend the approved program of specific course requirements for adding certification so that students receive appropriate training and can demonstrate competence in reading and writing braille; (l) adopt program approval standards so that students who are pursuing a program in a college or university in this State which leads to certification as instructional or administrative personnel shall complete successfully training and teacher development experiences in teaching higher order thinking skills;
51
(m) adopt program approval standards so that programs in a college or university in this State which lead to certification as administrative personnel must include training in methods of making school improvement councils an active and effective force in improving schools; (n) the Commission on Higher Education in consultation with the State Department of Education and the staff of the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation, shall develop a Governor’s Teaching Scholarship Loan Program to provide talented and qualified state residents loans not to exceed five thousand dollars a year to attend public or private colleges and universities for the purpose of becoming certified teachers employed in the public schools of this State. The recipient of a loan is entitled to have up to one hundred percent of the amount of the loan plus the interest on the loan canceled if he becomes certified and teaches in the public schools of this State for at least five years. The loan is canceled at the rate of twenty percent of the total principal amount of the loan plus interest on the unpaid balance for each complete year of teaching service in a public school. However, beginning July 1, 1990, the loan is canceled at the rate of thirty-three and one-third percent of the total principal amount of the loan plus interest on the unpaid balance for each complete year of teaching service in both an academic critical need area and a geographic need area as defined annually by the State Board of Education. In case of failure to make a scheduled repayment of any installment, failure to apply for cancellation or deferment of the loan on time, or noncompliance by a borrower with the purpose of the loan, the entire unpaid indebtedness plus interest is, at the option of the commission, immediately due and payable. The recipient shall execute the necessary legal documents to reflect his obligation and the terms and conditions of the loan. The loan program must be administered by the South Carolina Student Loan Corporation. Funds generated from repayments to the loan program must be retained in a separate account and utilized as a revolving account for the purpose of making additional loans. Appropriations for loans and administrative costs must come from the Education Improvement Act of 1984 Fund, on the recommendation of the Commission on Higher Education to the State Treasurer, for use by the corporation. The Education Oversight Committee shall review this scholarship loan program annually and report its findings and recommendations to the General Assembly. For purposes of this item, a ‘talented and qualified state resident’ includes freshmen students who graduate in the top ten percentile of their high school class, or who receive a combined verbal plus mathematics Scholastic Aptitude Test score of at least eleven hundred and enrolled students who have completed one year (two semesters or the equivalent) of collegiate work and who have earned a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.5 on a 4.0 scale. To remain eligible for the loan while in college, the student must maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average on a 4.0 scale.
52
Appendix B: 2017-18 SC Teacher Loan Advisory Committee
1A.6. (SDE-EIA: CHE/Teacher Recruitment) Of the funds appropriated in Part IA, Section 1, VIII.E. for the Teacher Recruitment Program, the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education shall distribute a total of ninety-two percent to the Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement (CERRA-South Carolina) for a state teacher recruitment program, of which at least seventy-eight percent must be used for the Teaching Fellows Program specifically to provide scholarships for future teachers, and of which twenty-two percent must be used for other aspects of the state teacher recruitment program, including the Teacher Cadet Program and $166,302 which must be used for specific programs to recruit minority teachers: and shall distribute eight percent to South Carolina State University to be used only for the operation of a minority teacher recruitment program and therefore shall not be used for the operation of their established general education programs. Working with districts with an absolute rating of At-Risk or Below Average, CERRA will provide shared initiatives to recruit and retain teachers to schools in these districts. CERRA will report annually by October first to the Education Oversight Committee and the Department of Education on the success of the recruitment and retention efforts in these schools. The South Carolina Commission on Higher Education shall ensure that all funds are used to promote teacher recruitment on a statewide basis, shall ensure the continued coordination of efforts among the three teacher recruitment projects, shall review the use of funds and shall have prior program and budget approval. The South Carolina State University program, in consultation with the Commission on Higher Education, shall extend beyond the geographic area it currently serves. Annually, the Commission on Higher Education shall evaluate the effectiveness of each of the teacher recruitment projects and shall report its findings and its program and budget recommendations to the House and Senate Education Committees, the State Board of Education and the Education Oversight Committee by October first annually, in a format agreed upon by the Education Oversight Committee and the Department of Education. With the funds appropriated CERRA shall also appoint and maintain the South Carolina Teacher Loan Advisory Committee. The Committee shall be composed of one member representing each of the following: (1) Commission on Higher Education; (2) State Board of Education; (3) Education Oversight Committee; (4) Center for Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement; (5) South Carolina Student Loan Corporation; (6) South Carolina Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators; (7) a local school district human resources officer; (8) a public higher education institution with an approved teacher education program; and (9) a private higher education institution with an approved teacher education program. The members of the committee representing the public and private higher education institutions shall rotate among those intuitions and shall serve a two-year term on the committee. The committee must be staffed by CERRA, and shall meet at least twice annually. The committee's responsibilities are limited to: (1) establishing goals for the Teacher Loan Program; (2) facilitating communication among the cooperating agencies; (3) advocating for program participants; and (4) recommending policies and procedures necessary to promote and maintain the program.
53
54
Appendix C: FY 2019-20 Legislative Proviso Memo
55
56
Appendix D: 2019-20 Proposed Legislative Proviso Language
PROPOSED FY20 LEGISLATIVE PROVISO
SC Teachers Loan Program
Based on the recommendations of the SC Teachers Loan Program Advisory Committee, as approved by the Commission on Higher Education in December 2017, the following legislative proviso would expand the SC Teachers Loan Program.
Proviso:
CHE-EIA: Teacher Loan Program
Effective July 1, 2019, the Teacher Loan Program, codified at SC Code Ann. Section 59-26-20 (j), shall be made available to all rising freshmen and sophomore applicants who have declared an intent to seek a teacher education degree, regardless of the applicant’s academic credentials. The available loan amount for the subsequent academic year will remain at $2,500 per year. Rising junior and senior teacher loan applicants who have been admitted into a teacher education program will be eligible for a loan amount of $7,500 for the subsequent academic year.
Effective July 1, 2019, all loan recipients who complete one full year of teaching in a SC public school shall be eligible for loan forgiveness at a rate of 33.3%, regardless of the subject they teach or the school where they teach. Loan forgiveness previously awarded will not be modified.
The loan administration vendor will no longer be limited to the SC Student Loan Corporation.
GROWING TEACHERS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA • CERRA.ORG • @CERRASC Stewart House at Winthrop University • Rock Hill, SC 29733 • P: 803.323.4032 or 800.476.2387 • F: 803.323.4044 57
The SC Education Oversight Committee is an independent, non-partisan group made up of 18 educators, business persons, and elected leaders. Created in 1998, the committee is dedicated to reporting facts, measuring change, and promoting progress within South Carolina’s education system.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions, please contact the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) staff for additional information. The phone number is 803.734.6148. Also, please visit the EOC website at www.eoc.sc.gov for additional resources.
The Education Oversight Committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or handicap in its practices relating to employment or establishment and administration of its programs and initiatives. Inquiries regarding employment, programs and initiatives of the Committee should be directed to the Executive Director 803.734.6148.
EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: EIA and Improvement Mechanisms
DATE: June 10, 2019
ACTION ITEM: Update on Fiscal Year 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill
PURPOSE/AUTHORITY Section 59-6-10 of the Education Accountability Act requires the EOC to “review and monitor the implementation and evaluation of the Education Accountability Act and Education Improvement Act programs and funding” and to make programmatic and funding recommendations to the General Assembly.” CRITICAL FACTS Attached is a summary of the Conference Committee report on H.4000, the 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill, as it pertains to public education funding and provisos.
TIMELINE/REVIEW PROCESS September 28, 2018 All EIA program report and budget request reports due to EOC. October 29, 2018 EIA and Improvement Mechanisms Subcommittee held public hearings for all entities funded by or requesting EIA revenues. November 8, 2018 Board of Economic Advisors makes first official EIA revenue projections for FY2019-20. November 26, 2018 EIA and Improvement Mechanisms Subcommittee met and adopted the attached budget and proviso recommendations for FY2019-20. December 10, 2018 EOC adopts funding and proviso recommendations and forwards to Governor and General Assembly. March 5, 2019 H.4000 introduced by House Ways and Means Committee. March 13, 2019 H.4000 as amended receives third reading in the House. H.4000 referred to Senate Finance Committee. April 10, 2019 Senate Finance Committee reports out favorable with amendments, H.4000 April 18, 2019 Senate gives third reading to H.4000 as amended. May 7, 2019 House further amends H.4000 and returns to Senate with amendments. May 9, 2019 Conference Committee appointed. May 20,2019 Conference Committee report submitted.
ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EOC Cost: No fiscal impact beyond current appropriations.
Fund/Source: ACTION REQUEST For approval For information
ACTION TAKEN
Approved Amended Not Approved Action deferred (explain) MEMORANDUM
TO: Members, Education Oversight Committee FROM: Melanie Barton DATE: May 21, 2019 IN RE: Update on Fiscal Year 2019-20 General Appropriation Bill (H.4000)
On April 18, 2019 the Senate gave third reading to H.4000, the Fiscal Year 2019-20 General Appropriation Act. When the Senate returned H.4000 to the House of Representatives as amended, the House on May 7, 2019 further amended its version of the budget. A Conference Committee was then appointed to work out the differences between the two versions of the budget. On May 20, 2019 the Conference Committee made its recommendations, which were approved by the Senate on May 20 and by Ellen Weaver the House on May 21.The Conference Committee report will be ratified and CHAIR Bob Couch sent to the Governor for his consideration. VICE CHAIR Below is a summary of public education funding as detailed in the Terry Alexander Conference Committee report. The Conference Committee report includes April Allen the following: Raye Felder Barbara B. Hairfield
• Consolidation of general fund line item appropriations for the Greg Hembree
Education Finance Act (EFA) and EFA employer contributions into a Kevin L. Johnson
new line item, State Aid to Classrooms. To the new General Fund John W. Matthews, Jr.
line item, State Aid to Classrooms was added $159,248,000 to raise Henry McMaster
the starting salary on the State Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule Brian Newsome from $32,000 to $35,000 and to increase salary cells beyond five Neil C. Robinson, Jr. years of experience by 4 percent. These funds pay for the full cost of Molly Spearman increasing the salary schedules. An additional $15.0 million was also John C. Stockwell added to the State Aid to Classrooms line item. The combined line Patti J. Tate item appropriation reflects an average per pupil funding level of Scott Turner $3,889. Furthermore, the funds are allocated based on the manner in which the funds were allocated in the current fiscal year. Melanie D. Barton EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EOC Members May 21, 2019 RE: Update on FY2019-20 GA Bill Page 2
• Publication in the budget of the new State Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule and the percentage increases for each cell in the salary schedule. The budget projects an average teacher salary of $52,830 in Fiscal Year 2019-20, which is the projected Southeastern average teacher salary for 2019-20.
• Allocation of at least $20 million in lottery revenues for instructional materials.
• Allocation of $19.4 million in lottery revenues for school bus lease/purchases.
• Allocated $50.0 million in excess debt service, non-recurring funds, to the South Carolina Department of Education for school district capital improvements. Of this amount, 25 percent is dedicated to assist school districts of 1,500 or fewer students who choose to consolidate. The funds can be expended for salary adjustments, facilities, debt mitigation, etc.
• Suspension of summative social studies assessments in grades 5 and 7 in school year 2019-20 with the savings from the suspension of the assessments allocated accordingly: $500,000 for professional development in computer science standards; and remainder, approximately $1.5 to $2.0 million, for cost of exams for students who earn industry certifications/credentials.
• Reinstatement of class size ratios as defined in regulations and reporting by school districts to the SCDE on student teacher ratios for every classroom at the 90th and 180th day reporting periods.
• Provision to allow school districts to create multiple schools of choice within a district. Regarding the Education Improvement Act (EIA) budget, the following chart compares the EIA budget recommendations of the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) with those of the Governor, the House, the Senate, and the Conference Committee.
EIA Budget Recommendations, FY2019-20 Recurring Conference
Base EOC Governor House Senate Committee Aid to Districts – Technology $12,000,000 ($12,000,000) ($12,000,000) ($12,000,000) CERDEP – SCDE $34,324,437 $7,116,616 $7,116,616 $7,116,616
(Transfer General Fund to EIA) SC Public Charter Schools $113,680,850 $15,404,235 $15,404,235 $14,873,019 $12,780,631 $12,780,631 Industry Certifications $550,000 $420,221 $420,221 (Annualization of $2,450,000) Teacher Salary Supplement/Fringe $35,269,769 Benefits $4,009,000 Special Schools Teacher Salary: Governor's School for Arts & Humanities $1,449,647 $101,929 $101,929 $169,884 $169,884 Wil Lou Gray Opportunity School $681,998 $27,340 $27,340 $54,680 $54,680 SC School for Deaf & Blind $7,618,282 $189,295 $189,295 $315,492 $315,492 Disabilities & Special Needs $468,653 ($60,000) ($60,000) ($60,000) ($60,000) Clemson Agriculture Teachers $1,008,253 $55,780 $55,780 $136,103 $136,103 Governor’s School Science & Math $1,032,006 $103,200 $103,200 $103,200 $175,116 $175,116
SCDE Employer Contributions $1,249,821 $4,255,165 $4,255,165 $4,255,165 NEW: School Resource Officers $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 New: Computer Science & Coding $3,100,000 New: Betabox $1,000,000 NEW: TransformSC $400,000 $400,000 NEW: SDE – Grants Committee $504,313 $504,313 NEW: EOC Partnerships for $500,000 $500,000
Innovation (Non-Recurring) TOTAL: $16,242,000 $24,351,000 $24,348,000 $24,348,000 $24,348,000 Difference in total EIA funds due to revised BEA EIA revenue estimate.
3
The following is a summary of proviso changes in H.4000 that impact public education. The information includes the House version of the proviso as adopted on May 7, 2019, the Senate version as adopted on April 18, 2019, and the Conference Committee report. As noted, Conference refers to either the House or Senate version of the proviso or a compromise version as adopted by the Conference Committee.
Section 1 – H630 Department of Education 1.3. (SDE: State Aid to Classrooms) House: Rolled up the EFA line item ($1,822,608,440) and the EFA employer contributions line item ($844,887,779) and added $159 million in general fund increases to increase teacher salaries. Of this new line item appropriation of $2,786,498,092, $3,846 per pupil in state aid to be allocated to school districts to fund the EFA, employer contributions, and a new State Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule, which is printed for the first time in the budget. The minimum starting salary in increased from $32,000 to $35,000, a 9.4% increase and all other cells after five years of service increased by 4%. In addition, the House amended definition of gifted and talented students to include students in high school taking Cambridge International courses as requested by the Education Oversight Committee (EOC). Conference (Senate): Also consolidated line items and published the State Minimum Teacher Salary Schedule. Due to adding an additional $15.0 million in the EFA, the percentages allocated for the EFA, EFA employer contributions and the state minimum teacher salary schedule were adjusted. The per pupil amount of state aid was also increased to $3,889. All other changes adopted by the House were included.
1.25. (SDE: School Districts and Special Schools Flexibility) Conference (House): Amended to eliminate the suspension of professional staffing ratios and expenditure regulations and to require school districts report the student teacher ratios for every classroom to the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) at the 90th and 180th day reporting periods.
1.39. (SDE: Residential Treatment Facilities Student Enrollment and Funding) Conference (Senate): Technical amendments to clarify that students in a residential treatment facility are funded with a weight of 2.10 as stipulated in Proviso 1.3. and that the residential treatment facility must deliver an instructional program that meets the needs of students and when applicable, the IEP or 504 plan of the student.
4
1.51. (SDE: Lee County Bus Shop) House: Deleted proviso requiring SCDE to fund Lee County and Kershaw County School District Bus Shops at same level as in prior fiscal year. Conference (Senate): Reinserted proviso.
1.57. (SDE: Full-Day 4K) House: Amended to increase per pupil reimbursement rate for instructional costs from $4,510 to $4,600 in the full-day 4K program.
Conference (Senate): Amended further to require the EOC in its annual evaluation of the 4K program provide information, recommendations and a timeline for how the state can increase the number of students served in high-quality programs. Senate further amended the proviso to allow expansion of eligibility for the CERDEP program to include “pay-lunch” children who score at or below the 25th national percentile on two of the three DIAL-3 subscales by July 1 if at least 75% of the total number of children eligible for the CERDEP program in a district or county are projected to be enrolled in the program, Head Start or ABC Child Care program.
1.58. (SDE: Summer Reading Camps) Conference (House and Senate): Deleted definition of poverty index that used free or reduced lunch price lunch program and Medicaid for purposes of allocating state funds for summer reading camps.
1.61. (SDE-EIA: Reading/Literacy Coaches) House: Amended to allow districts the ability to seek a waiver from SCDE to expend funds allocated for reading coaches for interventionists who spend more than fifty percent of their time providing direct support to struggling readers in grades kindergarten through grade five. Conference (Senate): Amended further to require the Department to screen and approve the hiring of any reading/literacy coach serving in a school in which one third or more of its 3rd grade students score at the lowest achievement level on SC READY. Schools in which at least 60% of students scored meets or Exceeds on the SC READY assessment in ELA, may submit as part of their reading plan a request to the Department for flexibility to utilize their allocation to provide literacy support to students.
5
1.66. (SDE: First Steps 4K Technology) Conference (House and Senate) Technical amendment deleting specific year reference to “current fiscal year”
1.69. (SDE: CDEPP Unexpended Funds) Conference (Senate): Amended the proviso to require the Department of Education and the Office of First Steps to target funds to schools in which more than one third of 3rd graders scored “Does Not Meet Expectations” on SC READY. The proviso allows carry forward funds to be expended for parent engagement. The proviso also allows the Office of First Steps to pilot higher reimbursement rates to high-quality centers to increase the number of First Steps participants. Up to $1.0 million in carry-forward funds may be used by the Office of First Steps to reimburse private providers rated B or higher in the ABC Quality System, increasing the instructional reimbursement rate by up to 10%.
1.70. (SDE: Technology Technical Assistance) Conference (Senate): Amended to direct SCDE to develop a statewide technology plan for schools and districts using the $350,000 in K-12 Technology Initiative funds. The plan must address, at a minimum, infrastructure and connectivity needs, online testing requirements, equipment, etc. The report must be completed by February 1, 2020 and provided to the Governor and chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee.
1.71. (SDE: Technology Technical Assistance) House: Amended to direct SCDE to develop a statewide technology plan for schools and districts that includes: infrastructure and connectivity needs; online testing requirements; equipment; educational technology; digital literacy and a statewide learning management system. Conference (Senate): Reinserted original proviso language. (See Proviso 1.70.)
1.74. (SDE: Computer Science Curriculum) Conference (Senate): Deleted the proviso since the computer science standards have been adopted
6
1.76. (SDE: First Steps 4K Underserved Communities) House: Amended to update year references Conference (Senate): Amended further to allow the Office of First Steps in communities unable to enroll all eligible students in a full-day 4K program, rather than enrolling less than 80% of eligible students in a full-day 4K program, to use up to $30,000 in one-time supplemental aid to help bring classrooms into compliance. In addition, the Senate allowed the Office of First Steps to provide full-day services in underserved communities serving multiple counties and districts. Children from non-CERDEP eligible districts may attend but must offer services to students from at least one CERDEP-eligible district. First Steps may provide grants up to a total of $1.0 million in carry forward funds to participants in this pilot if they are public-private partnerships to address building renovations and designs necessary to comply with licensing regulations.
1.77. (SDE: School Leadership) House: Amended to name SC Foundation for Educational Leadership for Center for Center of Executive Education Leadership (CEEL) to receive $400,000 for executive coaching and leadership development. Funds in the past had gone to CEEL but proviso had originally referred to it as “non-profit leadership development provider” which was also CEEL. Conference (Senate): Removed references to CEEL and instead uses the term “statewide K-12 professional association located in South Carolina whose membership provides for the development and support of current and future school leaders.”
1.82. (SDE: Safe Schools Initiative) House: Amended to require SCDE to support school threat assessment teams and training in school districts. By August 15 each school must identify key staff to serve on a threat assessment team. Conference (Senate): Amended further to delete subsection (B) related to lottery funds and school safety infrastructure.
1.86. (SDE: School Safety Program) House: Amended to add School Resources Officers.
Senate: Amended further to allow the Department to carry forward unexpended funds and to direct SCDE to utilize up to $2.0 million in prior year carry forward EIA funds allocated to Charter Schools to provide school resource officers in charter schools
7
authorized by the SC Public Charter School District or the Charter Institute at Erskine with priority given to charter schools with the highest poverty index.
Conference: Amended to add School Resource Officers and to allow SCDE to carry forward funds from the prior fiscal year and expend these funds for the same purposes.
1.87. (SDE: Exceptional Needs Sports Participation) Conference (House): Added new proviso that a student who meets the definition of ‘exceptional needs child’ in Section 12-6-3790 (A)(2) and the definition of ‘Qualifying Student’ in Section 12-6-3790 (A)(5) of the 1976 Code is eligible to participate in any sport offered at the public school for which the child is zoned to attend. Senate: Further amended to expand the provision to all private school students.
1.88. (SDE: School Districts Capital Improvement) House: Added a new proviso that directs SCDE to disperse $50 million in non-recurring funds for School Districts Capital Improvement. The funds are authorized through proviso 112.1, which directs the Office of State Treasurer to transfer from excess debt service monies $50 million to the Department of Education for this purpose. Eligible districts are districts with a poverty index of 70 percent or higher or an index of taxpaying ability less than .009. Conference (Senate): Increased the amount of funds authorized through proviso 112.1 to $65 million for the Rural School District and Economic Development Closing Fund at the Department of Commerce and amended the proviso further to allocate up to 25% of $50 million allocated to the Department of Education for capital improvements to be used for consolidation of districts with 1,500 or fewer students who chose to consolidate. The funds can be expended for salary adjustments, facilities, debt mitigation, etc.
1.89. (SDE: Teacher Salaries/SE Average) House: Added a new proviso that establishes the Southeastern average teacher salary to be $52,830 for Fiscal Year 2019-20 and adds language that it is the intent of the General Assembly to raise the average teacher in South Carolina over time to national average teacher salary. Conference (Senate): Amended the proviso further to require districts to use the prior year’s district salary schedule and inflate each step by 4%.
8
1.90. (SDE: School District Hold Harmless) House: Added a new proviso that allows any district that uses reserve funds to pay for teacher pay raises, to include step increases, to be held harmless from the local school district’s reserve fund requirement provisions in the Fiscal Accountability Act.
Conference (Senate): Amended the proviso to states that if there is no increase in state support for districts through the EFA formula, then a district may use reserve funds to pay for teacher pay raises, to include step increases and the district is held harmless from the local district’s reserve fund requirement provisions in the Fiscal Accountability Act for Fiscal Year 2019-20 if approved by the Department of Education.
1.91. (SDE: Cultural Sensitivity)
House: Added a new proviso to direct instruction in black history in grades 3 through 12 to include a cultural sensitivity component educating students about how they should interact with and be respectful of the beliefs and practices of people of a different race or creed.
Conference (Senate): No proviso.
1.92. (SDE: Educational Services for Children with Disabilities)
Conference (Senate): Added a new proviso to require SCDE to provide data to the Joint Legislative and Citizens Committee on Children and other legislative committees as needed to determine services for special needs children.
1.93. (SDE: Reserve Suspension)
Conference (Senate): Added a new proviso to suspend the cash reserve requirements for Dorchester School District 2 as required by local law.
1.94. (SDE: Standards-Based Assessments Suspended)
Conference (House): Added a new proviso to suspend science assessment in grade 8 and social studies assessments in grades 5 and 7 in school year 2019-20. Of the funds available due to the suspension of the assessments, $500,000 would be expended by the Department of Education to train teachers in computer science standards and the remainder for exams whereby students earn industry certifications/credentials.
9
1.95. (SDE: Schools of Choice)
Conference (Senate): Added a new proviso to allow school districts to create multiple schools of choice within a district if the schools of choice meet the requirements of Section 59-19-350 of the 1976 Code.
1.96. (SDE: Master's Plus Thirty)
Conference (Senate): Added a new proviso to direct SCDE to continue to process the master's plus thirty certificate classification in the same manner as the prior school year. Educators earning a master's degree with sixty or more semester hours of graduate coursework will remain eligible for the master's plus thirty credential classification.
1.97. (SDE: Capital Improvement Payments) Conference (Senate): Added a new proviso that allows any school districts to utilize any fees derived from developmental impact fees to pay debt service on projects included in the capital improvements plan for which the fees were imposed.
1.98. (SDE: Personal Finance)
Senate: Added a new proviso to direct SCDE to develop a one-half credit virtual course in personal finance.
Conference (House): No proviso.
1.99. (SDE: Online Accounting or Ledger) House: Added a new proviso to require any corporation, partnerships, sole proprietor, consortium or association of districts or any entity or person that receives state funds from a public school district or any school within a school district to maintain an online accounting or ledger that sets forth the recipient and amounts received and expended to be published on a website. Conference (Senate): No proviso.
10
Section 1A – H630 – Department of Education – EIA
1A.4. (SDE-EIA: Teacher Salaries/State Agencies) Conference (Senate): Amended to require SCDE rather than the EOC to calculate and recommend to the General Assembly funding needed for teacher salary increases for special schools.
1A.9. (SDE-EIA: Teacher Supplies) Conference (House and Senate): Amended to change tax year references from 2018 to 2019.
1A.14. (SDE-EIA: School Districts and Special Schools Flexibility) Conference (House): Amended to eliminate the suspension of professional staffing ratios and expenditure regulations and to require school districts report the student teacher ratios for every classroom to SCDE at the 90th and 180th day reporting periods.
1A.22. (SDE-EIA: 4K Targeting) Conference (House and Senate): Amended to change the definition of poverty index from students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch or Medicaid to the poverty index defined in the EFA.
1A.26. (SDE-EIA: Assessments-Gifted & Talented, Advanced Placement, & International Baccalaureate Exams) Conference (House and Senate): Amended to include Cambridge International Exam, along with Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) exams, as assessments for which EIA funds may be expended to cover the cost of administering the exams. EOC requested the change.
1A.29. (SDE-EIA: Full-Day 4K) House: Amended to increase per pupil reimbursement rate for instructional costs from $4,510 to $4,600 in the full-day 4K program. Conference (Senate): Amended further to require the EOC in its annual evaluation of the 4K program provide information, recommendations and a timeline for how the state can increase the number of students served in high-quality programs.
11
1A.36. (SDE-EIA: Teacher Salaries/SE Average) House: Amended to establish the Southeastern average teacher salary to be $52,830 for Fiscal Year 2019-20 and to direct EIA funds for teacher salaries to be used to implement a revised state minimum teacher salary schedule as defined in Proviso 1.3. Conference (Senate): Amended the proviso further to require districts to increase salary schedules by not less than 4% using the district salary schedule utilized in the prior fiscal year.
1A.37. (SDE-EIA: PowerSchool Dropout Recovery Data) Conference (House and Senate): Amended to allow SCDE to carry forward funds for annual school and district report cards.
1A.48. (SDE-EIA: Surplus) Conference (House and Senate): Deleted because there are no EIA surplus revenues projected to accrue at the end of the current fiscal year.
1A.50. (SDE-EIA: South Carolina Public Charter School Funding) House: Amended to allow three and four-year-olds with a disability who are eligible for services under IDEA and enrolled in a virtual or brick and mortar charter school to receive funding. Amended further to address inequities in funding during the 2017-18 fiscal year. The changes would require the allocation of $3,600 per pupil for any three and four-year- old students with a disability who would have qualified for IDEA funds in school year 2017- 18 and who were enrolled in a brick and mortar charter school in 2017-18, which was sponsored by a district or a registered institution of higher education.
Senate: Amended further to require the EOC to recommend one or more funding systems for charter schools using such indicators as graduation rate and academic achievement data. Conference: Language of both the House and Senate were adopted by the Conference Committee, including EOC to recommend funding system for charter schools.
1A.52. (SDE-EIA: TransformSC) Conference (House and Senate) Deleted proviso allocating $300,000 in non-recurring EIA funds to TransformSC. Appropriated $400,000 in recurring EIA funds to TransformSC.
12
1A.53. (SDE-EIA: CDEPP Student Information and Reporting)
Conference (Senate): Amended proviso to change date by which Office of First Steps and SCDE must report 45-day counts to appropriate legislative committees and EOC from November 1 to November 30.
1A.54. (SDE-EIA: Rural Teacher Recruiting Incentive) Conference (Senate): Amended the proviso to exclude from receiving funds the fifteen wealthiest districts based on the index of taxpaying ability.
1A.56. (SDE-EIA: Reading/Literacy Coaches) House: Amended to allow districts the ability to seek a waiver from SCDE to expend funds allocated for reading coaches for interventionists who spend more than fifty percent of their time providing direct support to struggling readers in grades kindergarten through grade five. Conference (Senate): Amended further to require the Department to screen and approve the hiring of any reading/literacy coach serving in a school in which one third or more of its 3rd grade students score at the lowest achievement level on SC READY. Schools in which at least 60% of students scored meets or Exceeds on the SC READY assessment in ELA, may submit as part of their reading plan a request to the Department for flexibility to utilize their allocation to provide literacy support to students.
1A.64. (SDE-EIA: Low Achieving Schools) House: Deleted proviso because no funds were allocated. Conference (Senate): Reinstated proviso and allocated $500,000 in non-recurring EIA funds for Partnerships for Innovation.
13
The following provisos were deleted by the Conference Committee because non- recurring EIA funds were not allocated to these purposes. Instead, funds were allocated accordingly: $3.3 million to the Department for the Innovation Grants program ($2.8 million in lottery funds and $504,313 in recurring EIA funds). 1A.51. (SDE-EIA: Low Achieving Schools) $375,000 in non-recurring EIA funds 1A.62. (SDE-EIA: Digital Learning) $1,425,000 in non-recurring EIA funds 1A.65. (SDE-EIA: EOC Military-Connected Children) $225,000 in non-recurring EIA funds. 1A.66. (SDE-EIA: STEM Labs) $225,000 in non-recurring EIA funds. 1A.72. (SDE-EIA: Teacher Academy Pilot) $75,000 in non-recurring EIA funds. 1A.73. (SDE-EIA: Kinesthetic Learning Platform) $187,500 in non-recurring EIA funds. 1A.74. (SDE-EIA: Algebra) $1,125,000 in non-recurring EIA funds. 1A.75. (SDE-EIA: Kindergarten Readiness Program) $225,000 in non-recurring EIA funds. 1A.77. (SDE-EIA: Save the Children) $375,000 in non-recurring EIA funds.
1A.70. (SDE-EIA: Aid to Districts-Technology) Conference (House and Senate): Deleted proviso because EIA line item appropriation for technology of $12.0 million was deleted. $12.0 million in recurring EIA funds.
1A.78. (SDE-EIA: Digital Learning Plan) Conference (House and Senate): Deleted proviso requiring the development of a Digital Learning Plan for public schools and for a pilot program for eLearning school make-up days (See new Proviso 1A.83.)
1A.80. (SDE-EIA: Teacher Salaries Increase) Conference (House and Senate): Deleted regarding teacher salary schedule increases. See instead amendments to Provisos 1.3., 1.89. and 1A.36
14
1A.81. (SDE-EIA: Grants Committee) House: Deleted proviso because no funds were appropriated for innovation pilot initiatives. Conference (Senate): Reinserted proviso and amended it require that Innovation Grants Committee operated by the Department of Education must give priority to funding projects funded by the EOC Partnerships for Innovation in the prior fiscal year. Amended further to require an external evaluation of projects funded as prescribed by the committee and not the responsibility of the EOC. The Conference Committee included $504,313 in recurring EIA funds to the Innovation Grants Committee and $2.8 million in lottery revenues.
1A.82. (SDE-EIA: Teacher Loan Program) Conference (House and Senate): Added proviso to direct EIA funds for Teacher Loan Program and its revolving fund can be used to increase the annual maximum award for eligible juniors, seniors and graduate students from $5,000 to $7,500 and to increase the aggregate maximum loan amount from $20,000 to $27,500.
1A.83. (SDE-EIA: Digital Learning Plan) Conference (House): Added proviso to direct EOC to implement second year of a pilot program for eLearning for school make-up days with first cohort of districts aiding new districts. Senate: Amended the proviso to require the Department of Education instead of the EOC to implement the pilot.
1A.84. (SDE-EIA: School Safety Program) House: Added proviso that with EIA funds of $10 million allocated to School Safety, the funds may be used by SCDE to hire certified law enforcement officers to serve as a school resource officer for school districts that otherwise would lack the adequate resources to hire their own school resource officer.
Senate: Amended the proviso further to allow the Department to carry forward unexpended funds and to direct the Department of Education to utilize up to $2.0 million in prior year carry forward EIA funds allocated to Charter Schools to provide school resource officers with priority given to charter schools with the highest poverty index. Furthermore, Senate amended to allocate $2.0 million of the $10 million allocated for School Safety to districts to districts based on the district’s index of taxpaying ability to hire psychologists, psychiatrists, or mental health counselors.
15
Conference: Amended to add School Resource Officers and to allow SCDE to carry forward funds from the prior fiscal year and expend these funds for the same purposes. The proviso further allows district to apply for funding with no district receiving an award of more than four school resource officer positions. The proviso does not permit the hiring of psychologists, psychiatrists or mental health counselors.
1A.85. (SDE-EIA: Teacher Recruitment Program) House: Added new proviso that reallocates $750,000 from the Rural Teacher Recruitment line item to the University of South Carolina for the development and implementation of a new teacher recruitment pilot program to be administered by the COE in partnership with the Center for Teaching Quality (CTQ). The purpose of the pilot program shall be the employment of innovative and cost-effective teacher recruitment strategies, customized training for new teachers, and dedicated, ongoing mentoring support. At minimum, the pilot program must assist no fewer than ten school districts to include at least four districts along the 1-95 corridor and serve no fewer than 250 teacher candidates. Conference (Senate): Amended the proviso further to require that before any funds are disbursed, accountability metrics for the pilot program must be developed that include, at a minimum, employment outcome indicators such as job placement and retention statistics as well as survey instrumentation to measure candidate, mentor, and principal satisfaction with the pilot program.
1A.86. (SDE: Bridge Program)
Conference (Senate): Added a new proviso to direct $1.4 million in funds appropriated for the rural teacher recruitment program to South Carolina State University for the implementation and enhancement of a BRIDGE program to recruit minority high school students along the I-95 corridor into the teaching profession by offering them, while still in high school, access to counseling, mentoring, on campus summer enrichment programs, and opportunities for dual enrollment credits at South Carolina State University and a partner institution.
House: No proviso.
16
1A.87. (SDE-EIA: Formative Assessments)
House: Added a new proviso that restricts the number of formative assessments at each grade level that can be administered by a school district. The assessments must also provide Lexile and Quantile scores for students.
Conference (Senate): No proviso.
1A.88. (SDE-EIA: Value-Added Assessment System) House: Added a proviso to transfer $1.4 million in EIA funds appropriated for value-added assessment from South Carolina Department of Education to the EOC to procure a value- added assessment that calculates student growth on the annual school report cards.
Conference (Senate): No proviso.
Other Provisions:
3.5 (LEA: FY 2019-20 Lottery Funding)
Senate: Amended to allocate $3.8 million in lottery funds to the Department of Education for Innovation Grants and $1.5 million in lottery funds to the EOC for an after-school pilot program and Clemson Forest Initiative.
Conference: Allocated $2.8 million in lottery funds to the Department of Education for Innovation Grants and $1.5 million in lottery funds to the EOC for an after-school pilot program and Clemson Forest Initiative
117.170 (GP: Early Childhood Education Study Committee) Conference (Senate): Added to establish the Early Childhood Education Study Committee to consider the establishment of a cabinet-level agency reporting directly to the Governor for all early childhood services.
17
EDUCATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE: EIA and Improvement Mechanisms
DATE: June 10, 2019
ACTION ITEM: Aid to Districts Technology – Fiscal Year 2018-19 Report
PURPOSE/AUTHORITY Pursuant to Proviso 1A.76. of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act, the EOC is required to report by June 30, 2019 to the K-12 Technology Committee how $12.0 million in Education Improvement Act (EIA) funds, appropriated by the General Assembly to school districts for technology, were expended in Fiscal Year 2018-19. Proviso 1A.76. governs the expenditure of these funds, previously known as the K-12 Technology Initiative, to improve external and internal technology infrastructure and to increase one-to-one computing initiatives in schools.
CRITICAL FACTS The EOC staff surveyed school district superintendent and district business/finance officers to gather the information.
TIMELINE/REVIEW PROCESS March 1 through April 12, 2019 EOC staff surveyed school districts. (all 82 school districts including the SC Public School Charter District and the Charter Institute at Erskine, the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind, and the Department of Juvenile Justice April 15 – May 15, 2019 EOC staff analyzed results.
ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR EOC Cost: No fiscal impact beyond current appropriations.
Fund/Source: EIA funds appropriated for operation of the agency.
ACTION REQUEST
For approval For information
ACTION TAKEN
Approved Amended Not Approved Action deferred (explain)
2019
AID TO DISTRICTS TECHNOLOGY
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Report
06.10.19
June 10, 2019
The following report is provided by the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) to the K- 12 School Technology Initiative Committee pursuant to Proviso 1A.76. of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act.
This report documents how $12.0 million in Education Improvement Act (EIA) funds, appropriated by the General Assembly to school districts for technology, were expended in Fiscal Year 2018-19. Proviso 1A.76. governs the expenditure of these funds, previously known as the K-12 Technology Initiative, to improve external and internal technology infrastructure and to increase one-to-one computing initiatives in schools. The report also includes information on efforts made by school districts to obtain reimbursements through the federal E-rate program. The data provided are self-reported by all 82 school districts, including the South Carolina Public Charter School District and the Charter Institute at Erskine.
i ii
Executive Summary
The staff of the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) surveyed school districts between March 1, 2019 and April 12, 2019. All 82 school districts, including the South Carolina Public School Charter District, responded to the K-12 Technology Initiative survey. In addition, the Charter Institute at Erskine, the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind, and the Department of Juvenile Justice responded to the K-12 Technology Initiative survey. The self-reported responses were analyzed by the EOC staff and documented as reported. In Fiscal Year 2018-19, the General Assembly appropriated $12.0 million in EIA revenues to districts for Aid to District – Technology. Of this amount, $350,000 was retained by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) pursuant to Proviso 1.73. of the 2018- 19 General Appropriation Act to “provide technology technical assistance to school districts.” Approximately $11,612,705 was allocated to the 82 school districts and the Charter Institute at Erskine and $29,938 to the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind, the Department of Juvenile Justice, and Palmetto Unified School District. In Fiscal Year 2018-19 school districts reported having $15.6 million in funds for technology - $11.6 million in EIA funds allocated during the current Fiscal Year and $4.0 million in unexpended funds from the program carried forward from the prior fiscal year, Fiscal Year 2017-18, to Fiscal Year 2018-19. Of these available funds, school districts reported that they will expend $13.1 million and will carry forward 15% or $2.4 million into Fiscal Year 2019-20. Of the funds to be expended in Fiscal Year 2018-19, districts reported that they will spend $11.5 million accordingly: • 56 percent on expanding and developing 1:1 computing initiatives through the replacement of existing devices and the purchasing of new devices; • 28 percent on improving internal connections; • 13 percent on other non-approved expenditures as reported by 8 school districts that did not receive waivers from the K-12 School Technology Initiative Committee; and • 3 percent spent on improving external connections. As of May 1, 2019, no school district had requested a waiver from the K-12 Technology Committee for Fiscal Year 2018-19 to expend its allocation on other technology-related issues outside the restrictions of Proviso 1A.76. However, eight school districts responded to the survey by indicating that they had received waivers from the K-12 Technology Committee and documented how they had spent their allocation. These eight districts reported spending $1.7 million or 12.7 percent of all expenditures for other technology-related issues.
1
Of the funds to be carried forward from Fiscal Year 2018-19 to Fiscal Year 2019-20, districts reported that they will carry forward $2.4 million and expend these funds accordingly: • 31 percent on improving internal connections; • 63 percent on expanding and developing 1:1 computing initiatives through the replacement of existing devices and the purchasing of new devices; • 2 percent on improving external connections; and • 4 percent on other expenditures.
Summary of K-12 Technology Initiative Funds, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Available Funds: $ % Funds Carried Forward from FY2017-18 $3,968,914 25.4 of Total Available FY 2018-19 Allocations $11,632,518 74.6 of Total Available Total Available Funds: $15,601,432*
Expenditures: Improve External Connections $356,215 2.7 of Expenditures Improve Internal Connections $3,717,452 28.1 of Expenditures Refresh/Replace Existing 1:1 Devices $3,189,462 24.1 of Expenditures Purchase new 1:1 Devices $4,207,625 31.8 of Expenditures Approved Waivers (none for 2018-19) $0 0 of Expenditures Other Non-Approved Purposes $1,674,455 12.6 of Expenditures Total Expenditures: $13,145,209* 84.3 of Total Available
Funds to be Carried Forward to FY2018-19: $2,363,678* 15.2 of Total Available * The total is $92,545 less than total available revenues due to incomplete data provided by districts.
Regarding the E-rate program, 81 of 82 districts reported filing for E-rate reimbursements. One district reported that they do not file for E-Rate reimbursements, and in for the Erskine Institute, filing for E-rate reimbursements was a school decision, and was not universal in the district. Of these 81 districts, 62 indicated that they used an outside vendor/consultant to assist in filing E-rate reimbursements. Among districts that reported using an outside vendor/consultant to assist in filing E-rate reimbursements, 58 percent indicated that 5% or less of these funds went to an outside vendor/consultant, and 92 percent of districts indicate that 10% or less of E-rate funds went to an outside vendor/consultant.
2
Authority Since Fiscal Year 2014-15 the General Assembly has appropriated to school districts lottery revenues and Education Improvement Act (EIA) revenues of approximately $112 million to improve technology infrastructure in public schools. (Table 1) These funds, which were initially known as the K-12 Technology Initiative, are in addition to the recurring EIA appropriation of $12.2 million administered by the K-12 School Technology Initiative Committee to expand connectivity under the federal E-rate program.
Table 1 K-12 Technology Initiative and Aid to Districts - Technology, Funding Fiscal Year Total Appropriation Source of Funds 2014-15 $29,288,976 Lottery Revenues 2015-16 $29,288,976 Lottery Revenues 2016-17 $29,288,976 Lottery Revenues 2017-18 $12,000,000 EIA Revenues (recurring) 2018-19 $12,000,000 EIA Revenues (recurring) TOTAL: $111,866,928 Source: Annual General Appropriation Acts.
Pursuant to Proviso 1A.76. of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act, the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) is required to provide by June 30, 2019 to the K-12 School Technology Initiative Committee a report detailing how districts expended in Fiscal Year 2018-19 funds appropriated for technology, using a form developed by the EOC. In the report, the EOC must also document how each district’s efforts to obtain reimbursements through the E-rate program. In Fiscal Year 2018-19, the General Assembly appropriated in EIA revenues $12.0 million to districts for technology. Of this amount, $350,000 was retained by the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) pursuant to Proviso 1.73. of the 2018-19 General Appropriation Act to “provide technology technical assistance to school districts.” Appendix A includes all provisos governing the allocation and expenditure of these funds. Appendix B documents the allocation of these funds in Fiscal Year 2018-19.
Survey Design and Administration On March 1, 2019 the EOC staff emailed the superintendents and school business/finance officers in all 82 school districts, the Charter Institute at Erskine, the South Carolina School for Deaf and Blind, and the Department of Juvenile Justice an Excel spreadsheet to use in documenting how districts project expending the technology funds in Fiscal Year 2018-19. The use of an Excel spreadsheet was selected by the EOC staff after consultation with school business officers. The same survey instrument was used for the prior fiscal year. 3
Appendix C is a copy of the email sent to all school districts along with the actual survey questions. The email states that, while the EOC used the annual technology survey administered by SCDE in the prior fiscal year to collect this information, the survey this year was sent directly to the school business/finance officers with suggestions that they work with their technology staff to complete the information requested: 1. Of the current district allocation for Fiscal Year 2018-19 and funds carried forward from the prior fiscal year, Fiscal Year 2017-18, to Fiscal Year 2018-19, what will be the projected total amount of expenditures in Fiscal Year 2018-19 and the total amount of funds projected to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2019-20?
2. Of the total amount of funds available to spend for technology in Fiscal Year 2018- 19, how much does the district project to expend for the following allowable expenses: • Improve External Connections • Improve Internal Connections • Refresh/Replace Existing 1:1 Devices • Purchase new 1:1 Devices
3. For any district that received a waiver approved by the K-12 School Technology Initiative Committee, how does the district project to expend the funds for other technology-related expenditures? The choices included: • Improve Security • Professional Development for Classroom Teachers • Professional Development for Other Educators • Technical Assistance for district technology staff • Other: (Districts could identify up to three Other expenditure)
4. Regarding funds that will be carried forward from Fiscal Year 2018-19 to Fiscal Year 2019-20, how does the district project to spend these funds? Districts could select from the following options: • Improve External Connections • Improve Internal Connections • Refresh/Replace Existing 1:1 devices • Purchase new 1:1 Devices
5. Regarding the E-rate program, districts were asked to respond to the following questions: • Does your district use an outside vendor/consultant to assist in filing E-rate reimbursements? • If Yes, what percent of the E-rate reimbursements does the vendor/consultant collect? • Does your district file for Category One or Category Two funding under E-rate? • If No, what is the primary reason why your district does not file for Category One or Category Two funding under E-rate? 4
Districts had until March 30, 2019 to complete the survey. Districts were reminded of the date of submission again on March 20, 2019. When districts failed to meet the March 30 deadline, EOC staff made telephone calls and emails to these districts.
Results By April 12, 2019, all 82 school districts, the Charter Institute at Erskine, the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind, and the Department of Juvenile Justice had completed the survey.
Available Funds and Expenditures in Fiscal Year 2018-19 In Fiscal Year 2018-19 school districts reported having a total of $15.6 million to expend for technology. Of this amount, approximately 75 percent was from current year allocations of EIA funds for technology and the remainder from unexpended funds from the program that were carried forward from Fiscal Year 2017-18 into Fiscal Year 2018- 19. (Table 2) The percentage of total available funds for 2018-19 that were carried forward from 2017-18 (25 percent) is substantially smaller than the percentage of funds available for 2017-18 that were carried forward from 2016-17 (47 percent) to Fiscal Year 2017-18.1
Table 2 Fiscal Year 2018-19 K-12 Technology Initiative Available Funds Total Percent of
FY2018-19 Available Funds Funds Carried Forward from FY2017-18 $3,968,914 25.4 FY 2018-19 Allocations $11,632,518 74.6 Total Available Funds $15,601,432 100.0
1 South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. K-12 Technology Initiative – Report on Fiscal Year 2017-18. June 11, 2018. https://eoc.sc.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/Technology/K- 12%20Technology%20Intiative%20Report.pdf
5
Of the $15.6 million in available funds for technology, districts reported that they will expend $13.1 million in the current fiscal year. Of this amount, $11.5 million was for expenditures that were expressly allowed by Proviso 1A.76. and $1.7 million for other technology expenditures that were not authorized by Proviso 1A.76. In addition, districts reported that they will carry forward $2.4 million in unexpended funds from the program into the subsequent fiscal year. (Table 3) The total amount in expenditures and carry forward funds was $92,545 less than total available funds. Nine (9) school districts indicated that their carry forwards from the current fiscal year to Fiscal Year 2019-20 exceeded their total available funds for Fiscal Year 2018-19. The amount of the discrepancy was $92,545 and was excluded from Table 3.
Table 3 Fiscal Year 2018-19 K-12 Technology Initiative Expenditure and Carry Forward of Funds Total Percent of
FY2018-19 Available Funds Allowable by Proviso 1A.76 $11,470,754 73.5 Other Technology Uses $1,674,455 10.7 Carry-Forward to FY2019-20 $2,363,678 15.2 Total $15,508,877* 99.5 * The total is $92,545 less than total available revenues due to incomplete data provided by districts.
Of the $11.5 million expended for technology as expressly delineated by Proviso 1A.76 to improve internal and external connections and to develop or expand one-to-one computing, districts reported spending the funds accordingly: (Table 4)
• 56 percent on expanding and developing 1:1 through the replacement of existing devices and the purchasing of new devices; • 28 percent on improving internal connections; and • 3 percent on improving external connections.
As noted in Table 4, compared to Fiscal Year 2017-18, districts spent 6.2 percent more to improve internal connections. Regarding the purchase of devices, districts spent 6.0 percent less to refresh or replace devices but 7.8 percent more to purchase devices for 1:1 computing.2
2Ibid. 6
Table 4 Fiscal Year 2018-19 Funds Spent in Allowable Areas Percent of Total Percent of Total Total Expenditures in Expenditures from FY2018-19 FY 2018-19 FY2017-18 Report Improve External Connections $356,215 2.7 1.9 Improve Internal Connections $3,717,452 28.1 21.9 Refresh/Replace Existing 1:1 $3,189,462 24.1 30.1 Devices Purchase new 1:1 Devices $4,207,625 31.8 24.0 TOTAL: $11,470,754 86.6 77.9
As of May 1, 2019, no school district had requested a waiver from the K-12 Technology Committee for Fiscal Year 2018-19 to expend its allocation on other technology-related issues outside the restrictions of Proviso 1A.76. However, eight school districts responded to the survey by indicating that they had received waivers from the K-12 Technology Committee and documented how they had spent their allocation. These eight districts reported spending $1,674,455 or 12.7 percent of all expenditures for other technology-related issues. (Table 5) These eight districts (Charleston, Clarendon 1, Horry, Laurens 56, Lee, Lexington 1, Spartanburg 7, and Sumter) responded to the following survey question: For any district that received a waiver approved by the K-12 Technology Initiative Committee, how did the district project to expend the funds for other technology- related expenditures? The choices included: • Improve Security • Professional Development for Classroom Teachers • Professional Development for Other Educators • Technical Assistance for district technology staff • Other: (Districts could identify up to three Other expenditure)
7
Table 5 Fiscal Year 2018-19 Funds Spent in Other Areas without Waivers Approved Percent of Total Total Expenditures in 2018-19 Improve Security $3,567 Less than 0.1 Professional Development for $0 0.0 Classroom Teachers Professional Development for Other $0 0.0 Educators Technical Assistance for District $31,242 0.2 Technology Staff Other $1,639,646 12.5 TOTAL: $1,674,455 12.7
These districts reported spending for Other purposes not allowed by Proviso 1A.76. and not permitted under the program guidelines published in the 2018-2019 Funding Manual:
Guidelines Funds may only be used for the following purposes: (1) To improve external connections to schools, with a goal of reaching at least 100 kilobits per second, per student in each school by 2019; (2) To improve internal connections within schools, with a goal of reaching at least 1 megabit per second, per student in each school by 2019; (3) To develop or expand one-to-one computing initiatives; or (4) with *prior permission of the K-12 Technology Initiative Committee, and if the district has completed items (1) - (3), other technology- related uses.
Note: SCDE approval of a district's technology plan is not permission to expend these funds as listed in item (4). An application to the K-12 Technology Initiative is required.
* An approval letter from the K-12 School Technology Committee.3
The Guidelines also provide steps to be used in requesting permission to utilize funds for “other technology-related uses.”
3 2019-2019 Funding Manual. South Carolina Department of Education. Page https://www.ed.sc.gov/finance/financial-services/manual-handbooks-and-guidelines/funding- manuals/fy-2018-2019-funding-manual/ 8
Districts were asked to identify up to three Other expenditures. These eight districts noted spending the $1.7 million for the following: • Charter School Payments; • Develop/Enhance Distance Learning; • Develop Digital Curriculum for 1:1 • Improve Server Environment; • E-rate Reimbursement; • RFID Tag Project for 1:1 devices • Security software or e-learning educational programs including OnHand, Explore Learning, iStation, EdBlox, and School Check In. For comparison purposes, the EOC documented that between 7 and 25 percent of total expenditures in Fiscal Year 2016-17 were for uses that were not approved by the K-12 Technology Committee.4 And, 22 percent of total expenditures in 2017-18 were for uses that were not approved by the K-12 Technology Committee.5
Carry forwards from Fiscal Year 2018-19 to Fiscal Year 2019-20 Table 6 presents a summary of how districts intend to spend funds carried forward from Fiscal Year 2018-19 to Fiscal Year 2019-20. Of the $2.3 million projected to be carried forward, districts indicate they intend to expend these funds accordingly: • 31 percent on improving internal connections; • 63 percent on refreshing, replacing or purchasing new devices for one-to-one computing; • 2 percent on external connections; and • 4 percent on other expenses.
4 South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. K-12 Technology Initiative – Report on Fiscal Year 2016-17. October 9, 2017. https://www.eoc.sc.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/K- 12%20Technology%20Initiative%2C%202016-17-E.pdf.
5 South Carolina Education Oversight Committee. K-12 Technology Initiative – Report on Fiscal Year 2017-18. June 11, 2018. https://eoc.sc.gov/sites/default/files/Documents/Technology/K- 12%20Technology%20Intiative%20Report.pdf.
9
Table 6 Projected Expenditures for Funds Carried Forward to Fiscal Year 2019-20 Percent of Percent of Carry Forward Carry Forward Total Funds from Funds FY2017-18 FY2019-20 Report Improve External Connections $50,874 2.2 4.3 Improve Internal Connections $735,116 31.1 61.1 Refresh/Replace Existing 1:1 $1,063,875 45.0 12.6 Devices Purchase new 1:1 Devices $413,812 17.5 20.3 Other $100,000 4.2 1.8 TOTAL *: $2,363,678
Table 7 summarizes the allocation and expenditures of K-12 Technology Initiative Funds for Fiscal Year 2018-19.
Table 7 Summary of K-12 Technology Initiative Funds, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Available Funds: $ % Funds Carried Forward from FY2017-18 $3,968,914 25.4 of Total Available FY 2018-19 Allocations $11,632,518 74.6 of Total Available Total Available Funds: $15,601,432*
Expenditures: Improve External Connections $356,215 2.7 of Expenditures Improve Internal Connections $3,717,452 28.1 of Expenditures Refresh/Replace Existing 1:1 Devices $3,189,462 24.1 of Expenditures Purchase new 1:1 Devices $4,207,625 31.8 of Expenditures Approved Waivers (none for 2018-19) $0 0 of Expenditures Other Non-Approved Purposes $1,674,455 12.6 of Expenditures Total Expenditures: $13,145,209* 84.3 of Total Available
Funds to be Carried Forward to FY2018-19: $2,363,678* 15.2 of Total Available * The total is $92,545 less than total available revenues due to incomplete data provided by districts.
10
E-Rate Program Regarding the E-rate program, sixty-two of 82 districts (76 percent) indicated that they used an outside vendor/consultant to assist in filing E-rate reimbursements. Table 8 documents the percent of the E-rate reimbursements these districts pay an outside vendor/consultant. Among districts that reported using the E-rate program, 58 percent indicated that 5 percent or less of these funds went to an outside vendor/consultant, and 92 percent of districts indicate that 10 percent or less of E-rate funds go to an outside vendor/consultant. The four questions asked regarding E-rate funding were: • Does your district use an outside vendor/consultant to assist in filing E-rate reimbursements? • If Yes, what percent of the E-rate reimbursements does the vendor/consultant collect? • Does your district file for Category One or Category Two funding under E- rate? • If No, what is the primary reason why your district does not file for Category One or Category Two funding under E-rate?
Table 8 Percentage of E-rate Reimbursements Paid to an Outside Vendor/Consultant Percentage of E-rate Funds Number (Percent) of Districts 11 – 15% 5 (8%) 6 – 10% 21 (34%) 0 – 5% 36 (58%)
Eighty-one (81) districts, including the Department of Juvenile Justice, and the School for the Deaf & Blind all indicated that they filed for Category One or Category Two funding under the E-rate program. The Charter Institute at Erskine did not provide E-rate information because each of its schools makes its own decision regarding E-rate funding, consequently, no single answer is correct for the Erskine Institute schools. Only Bamberg 2 reported that the district did not apply for Category One or Category Two funding under E-rate. The reason cited for not applying for these funds was: • We have not applied for E-Rate because of the amount of tedious paper work and time involved.
11
12
Appendix A 2018-19 General Appropriation Act Provisos Related to K-12Technology Initiative
1.73. (SDE: Technology Technical Assistance) Of the funds appropriated for the K-12 Technology Initiative, the department is authorized to withhold up to $350,000 in order to provide technology technical assistance to school districts.
1A.76. (SDE-EIA: Aid to Districts-Technology) Funds appropriated to the Department of Education for Aid to Districts - Technology shall be distributed to the public school districts of the state, the special schools of the state and the South Carolina Public Charter School District, per pupil, based on the previous year’s one hundred thirty-five day average daily membership, according to the below calculations: (1) For a school district with a poverty index of less than 75: $35 per ADM; (2) For a school district with a poverty index of at least 75 but no more than 85: $50 per ADM; or (3) For a school district with a poverty index of greater than 85 or a special school with no defined poverty index: $70 per ADM. Poverty will be defined as determined for the poverty add on weight in Proviso 1.3 of this Act. The Department of Education may adjust the per-ADM rates for each of the three classes defined above in order to conform to actual levels of student attendance and available appropriations, provided that the per-ADM rate for each class is adjusted by the same percentage.
Funds distributed to a school district may only be used for the following purposes: (1) To improve external connections to schools, with a goal of reaching at least 100 kilobits per second, per student in each school by 2017; (2) To improve internal connections within schools, with a goal of reaching at least 1 megabit per second, per student in each school by 2017; or (3) To develop or expand one-to-one computing initiatives.
A school district that has achieved each of the above goals may submit a plan to the K-12 Technology Committee for permission to expend its allocation on other technology-related uses; such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld and the K-12 Technology Committee must permit districts to appeal any process should a district not receive approval and must provide technical assistance to districts in developing plans should the district request such.
Funds appropriated may not be used to supplant existing school district expenditures on technology. By June 30, 2019, each school district that receives funding during Fiscal Year 2018- 19 must provide the K-12 Technology Committee with an itemized report on the amounts and uses of these funds, using a form developed by the Education Oversight Committee. In this report, a school district must provide information on its efforts to obtain reimbursements through the "E- Rate" Schools and Libraries Program administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company. Within its available resources, the K-12 Technology Committee shall support school districts’ efforts to obtain these reimbursements.
13
14
Appendix B Allocation of K-12 Technology Initiative Funds, Fiscal Year 2018-19 Subfund 307, Revenue Code 3507
District Allocation Abbeville $41,250.83 Aiken $338,181.65 Allendale $31,231.69 Anderson 1 $138,514.65 Anderson 2 $51,754.42 Anderson 3 $35,091.30 Anderson 4 $39,523.41 Anderson 5 $179,847.85 Bamberg 1 $26,643.09 Bamberg 2 $18,098.83 Barnwell 19 $16,754.16 Barnwell 29 $17,700.72 Barnwell 45 $42,733.67 Beaufort $300,311.67 Berkeley $475,521.06 Calhoun $33,777.10 Charleston $655,291.79 Cherokee $120,705.40 Chester $102,848.11 Chesterfield $97,774.67 Clarendon 1 $20,306.43 Clarendon 2 $79,220.94 Clarendon 3 $17,221.27 Colleton $110,140.38 Darlington $196,455.81 Dillon 3 $22,358.10 Dillon 4 $114,725.81 Dorchester 2 $361,884.14 Dorchester 4 $32,208.52 Edgefield $47,781.76 Fairfield $70,958.33 Florence 1 $225,800.78 Florence 2 $15,858.84 Florence 3 $95,522.04 Florence 4 $18,300.21 15
District Allocation Florence 5 $16,866.64 Georgetown $128,718.47 Greenville $1,043,656.52 Greenwood 50 $123,103.32 Greenwood 51 $17,924.10 Greenwood 52 $21,663.04 Hampton 1 $44,169.12 Hampton 2 $19,042.71 Horry $615,773.50 Jasper $70,953.79 Kershaw $149,222.18 Lancaster $184,873.90 Laurens 55 $78,019.00 Laurens 56 $59,153.96 Lee $52,760.37 Lexington 1 $362,319.01 Lexington 2 $122,178.75 Lexington 3 $27,546.90 Lexington 4 $64,748.03 Lexington 5 $237,524.34 McCormick $14,778.09 Marion $124,424.55 Marlboro $77,441.64 Newberry $82,554.78 Oconee $142,542.98 Orangeburg 3 $71,626.97 Orangeburg 4 $70,913.86 Orangeburg 5 $177,217.59 Pickens $223,028.78 Richland 1 $463,628.47 Richland 2 $386,915.10 Saluda $31,705.33 Spartanburg 1 $68,986.49 Spartanburg 2 $138,527.57 Spartanburg 3 $39,328.98 Spartanburg 4 $37,869.98 Spartanburg 5 $117,047.17 Spartanburg 6 $155,843.57 Spartanburg 7 $101,175.55 16
District Allocation Sumter $228,325.95 Union $78,474.14 Williamsburg $106,169.22 York 1 $71,074.36 York 2 $106,438.92 York 3 $242,664.01 York 4 $211,637.26 SC Public Charter $291,693.01 Erskine Institute $118,153.82 TOTAL: $11,612,705.22
Wil Lou Gray $0.00 Deaf & Blind $6,097.90 DJJ $13,714.87 Palmetto Unified $10,125.22 Special Total $29,937.99 State Expenses $350,000.00 Grand Total: $11,992,643.21
Source: Monthly Payments to School Districts. SC Department of Education. Accessed on May 2, 2018. https://ed.sc.gov/finance/financial-services/payment-information/monthly-payments-to-districts/
17
18
Appendix C
19
In Fiscal Year 2018-19 the General Assembly appropriated approximately $11.6 million in EIA revenues to school districts and special schools for the K-12 Technology Initiative. The proviso governing the program, Proviso 1A.76, requires that districts provide an itemized report on the amounts and uses of these funds on a form developed by the Education Oversight Committee (EOC). The objective of this survey is to collect data that will be submitted to the K-12 Technology Committee and then to the General Assembly. Click the tab "6) Appropriation Act" to read Proviso 1A.76. In collaboration with your district's technology officer or with other appropriate staff in your district, please document how the funds carried forward from the prior year and funds allocated in the current fiscal year, FY 2018-19, have been or are estimated to be expended by answering the survey questions. Please complete and respond by April 30, 2018 There are 6 "tabs" to this survey: 1) Directions (this tab) 2) Technology Funds Questions for FY 2018-19 3) Carry Forward Questions for FY 2018-19 4) E-Rate Questions 5) Print your Results (optional - you will have a saved copy of this completed spreadsheet) 6) Appropriation Act (Reference Material)
When you have completed the survey, please: 1) Save this excel document with your school district name. 2) E-mail it as an attachment to: [email protected] with the subject "Technology" Note: For help completing this survey call Kevin Andrews at 803-734-9925
20
1) Please select your district by clicking on the green box, a "pull-down arrow" will appear at right. Use it to select your district. 2) Please fill in all yellow boxes. Blue boxes will update automatically (a default value of $0 appears). 3) Be sure to scroll to the right to complete Projected Expenditures by Area. 4) Scroll down to see a green box, which will turn white when your total expenditures by area match your Total Projected Expenditures for FY2018-19 Projections for FY2018-19 Expenses by Area: What is your District? AAA - Select District Using Arrow at Right Allowable Expenses Per Proviso Expenditures in FY 2018-19 Person Completing Survey: Improve External Connections $1 Name: Improve Internal Connections $0 Title: Develop/Expand 1:1 Email: Refresh/Replace existing 1:1 devices $0 Purchase new 1:1 devices $0 Please Enter your Carry Forward of K-12 Technology Initiative Funds from FY 2017-18: Current Allocation (Revenue Code 3507, Subfund $0 307) Expenditures per Waiver Approved by K-12 Expenditures in FY 2018-19 Technology Initiative Committee: Total Available Funds for FY 2018-19: $0 Improve Security $0 Professional Development for Classroom $0 Teachers What are your Total Projected Expenditures in Professional Development for Other Educators $0 2018-19: Technical Assistance for District Technology $0 Staff Projected Carry Forward into FY 2018-19: $0 Other 1: Describe Other 1 here (overwrite $0 text) Other 2: Describe Other 2 here $0 Other 3: Describe Other 3 here $0 You have not provided Projected Expenditures -$1 Totals by Area: $1 by Area, please scroll to the right to enter them Either you have not entered Total Projected Expenditures, or it does not match the Total Expenditures by Area
21
Please provide how your district projects to expend K-12 Technology Initiative funds carried forward from the current fiscal year, FY 2018-19, to the next fiscal year, FY 2018- 19. Allowable Expenses Per Proviso Carry Forward to FY2018-19
Improve External Connections $0 Improve Internal Connections $0 Develop/Expand 1:1 Refresh/Replace existing 1:1 devices $0 Purchase new 1:1 devices $0 Other 1: Describe Other 1 here (overwrite text) $0 Other 2: Describe Other 2 here $0 Other 3: Describe Other 3 here $0 Totals by Area: $0
22
Question Please provide responses to questions 1-3 using the drop-down menus at right, and respond to question 4 (if necessary) by filling in your response. 1. Does your district use an outside Select Yes/No Here >> vendor/consultant to assist in filing E-Rate reimbursements? 2. If "Yes", what percent of the E-Rate Select Percentage Here reimbursements does the vendor/consultant >> collect? Please answer the following questions regarding Category One and Category Two funding: Category One = Data transmission services and Internet access Category Two = Internal connections, managed internal broadband services, basic maintenance of internal connections 3. Does Your district file for Category One or Select Yes/No Here >> Category Two funding under E-Rate? 4. If "No", what is the primary reason why your district does not file for Category One or Category Two funding under E-Rate? Please overwrite this text to explain your "No" response. Don't worry about any text alignment or highlighting (256 characters max).
23
Tab Data Element Value 2) District AAA - Select District Using Arrow at Right Technology Person 0 Funds Title 0 Email 0 Carry Forward from FY2017- 0 18 Automatically Inserted: 0 Allocation Computed: Available 0 Total Projected Expenditures 0 Computed: Carry_1718 0 Improve External 1 Connections Improve Internal Connections 0 Refresh/Replace 1:1 0 Purchase new 1:1 devices 0 Improve Security 0 Professional Development for 0 Classroom Teachers Professional Development for 0 Other Educators Technical Assistance for 0 District Technology Staff Expend_Other1 0 Expend_Other2 0 Expend_Other3 0 Expend_Total_by_Area 1 Text_Other1 Describe Other 1 here (overwrite text) Text_Other2 Describe Other 2 here Text_Other3 Describe Other 3 here 3) Carry Carry Forward: Improve 0 Forward External Connections Carry Forward: Improve 0 Internal Connections Carry Forward: 0 Refresh/Replace 1:1 Devices Carry Forward: Purchase new 0 1:1 Devices Carry Forward: Other 1 0 Carry Forward: Other 2 0 Carry Forward: Other 3 0 Carry Forward: Total by Area 0
24
Tab Data Element Value 4) E-Rate Do You use an Outside Select Yes/No Here >> Vendor for E-Rate? Percentage of E-Rate Select Percentage Here >> Reimbursements to Outside Vendor Do you use Category One Select Yes/No Here >> and Two Funding? Reason, if No Please overwrite this text to explain your "No" response. Don't worry about any text alignment or highlighting (256 characters max).
25
The SC Education Oversight Committee is an independent, non-partisan group made up of 18 educators, business persons, and elected leaders. Created in 1998, the committee is dedicated to reporting facts, measuring change, and promoting progress within South Carolina’s education system.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions, please contact the Education Oversight Committee (EOC) staff for additional information. The phone number is 803.734.6148. Also, please visit the EOC website at www.eoc.sc.gov for additional resources.
The Education Oversight Committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or handicap in its practices relating to employment or establishment and administration of its programs and initiatives. Inquiries regarding employment, programs and initiatives of the Committee should be directed to the Executive Director 803.734.6148.