Investing in Rhode Island S Youth

Investing in Rhode Island’s Youth:

Afterschool Programs and the Proposed Education Aid Foundation Formula

Robert Palaich,

Justin Silverstein

and

Amanda Brown

Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.

1120 Lincoln, Suite 1101

Denver, Colorado 80203

February 2008

Research commissioned by the Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance

With support from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the United Way of Rhode Island, and the Rhode Island Foundation

Executive Summary

Those who understand today’s world of afterschool programming can easily see how afterschool programs can help students who are behind academically achieve many state learning objectives. Traditionally, afterschool programming focuses on instilling responsible behavior, increasing academic skills and providing enrichment opportunities for students. Each of these contributes to a successful school experience. In the elementary years, these programs help students build academic skills and avoid retention in a grade level. In the secondary years, these programs continue to help skill development but also help students stay engaged in school.

The study reviewed afterschool programming financing from education sources in selected states and was able to draw several important conclusions.

· For Grant Application Programs (Kentucky, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee).

o If the goal is to require schools and districts to spend the money they receive on afterschool programming, the best way to do so is to set up a grant application program. The grant program approach, however, does have limitations. This system requires advocates for afterschool programs to argue to reset the state allocated amount periodically, often every year.

· For Integration with the School Funding Formula (Ohio, Minnesota, Wyoming).

o If the goal is to integrate afterschool programming with education programming and to provide afterschool funding on more consistent basis, integrating the afterschool funding with K-12 funding makes a great deal of sense. There are two general concerns. The first is that K-12 funding levels are generally related to the overall performance of state’s economy. During state economic downturns even this relatively stable funding mechanism can contract. The second is that it is very difficult to know (or to determine) the amount of money specifically targeted to afterschool programming.

Next the study provided two estimate of afterschool funding for the state of Rhode Island based on the recommendation of Education Foundation Technical Advisory Group. First, the study used adequacy study results in four states to generate an estimate based on an “at-risk” student count and weight. This estimate resulted in a range of dollars from approximately $3,500 in New Shoreham to over $4 million in Providence and totaled approximately $11.4 million statewide. The second estimate was based on two state adequacy studies that determined afterschool funding based on the enrollment count of the district and a percentage applied to the statewide base cost. This estimate resulted in a range of dollars from approximately $25,800 in New Shoreham to over $4.2 million in Providence and totaled approximately $23 million statewide.

For these resources to become a reality in Rhode Island several things must happen – the state’s economy must recover, the state must adopt a new funding formula along the lines of the Advisory Group recommendations and school districts must be persuaded that when serving at-risk students, afterschool programs are an effective use of resources.

In conversations with the Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) was asked to prepare a paper that did the following three things: examine the approach to afterschool funding used by a select group of states that allow or encourage education funding to be directed toward afterschool programming; examine recent adequacy studies to get a sense of the role that afterschool funding plays in the base cost or in the weights generated by those studies; and finally, generate an estimate of afterschool funding for Rhode Island under proposals made by the Rhode Island’s Education Foundation Technical Advisory Group (Advisory Group). This paper is structured to address these issues.

Introduction

Definitions of what constitutes an “adequate” education vary by state. The adequacy framework began in 1989 when the Kentucky Supreme Court outlined a set of learning objectives that should be achieved in the state. What was outlined included not only “sufficient oral and written communications skills,” but also such skills as “sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation” and “sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts.”

During the almost two decades since the Kentucky ruling, greater emphasis has been placed on academic performance as a prime school objective. At the same time there is growing concern that these very important skills and understandings must be accompanied by some essential opportunities for students that are behind academically or these academic goals (and scores on the assessments designed to measure them) could become barriers. For example, during testimony in a South Carolina school finance suit in 2004, one expert laid out ten essential opportunities that are needed for students to meet these higher and broader standards and goals. They included such opportunities as: pre-kindergarten services for 3- and 4-year olds, parental outreach and literacy, reading specialists and training, middle and high school rigor and course offerings, and afterschool programs and summer school opportunities among others.

Those who understand today’s world of afterschool programming can easily see how afterschool programs can help students who are behind academically achieve many state learning objectives. Afterschool proponents would argue that afterschool and summer school programming should be an important component of a set of essential opportunities covered by state school finance formulas. Traditionally, afterschool programming focuses on instilling responsible behavior, increasing academic skills and providing enrichment opportunities for students. Each of these contributes to a successful school experience. In the elementary years, these programs help students build academic skills and avoid retention in a grade level. In the secondary years, these programs continue to help skill development but also help students stay engaged in school.

It is also widely understood that there is substantial variation in afterschool programming. Some programs offer enrichment experiences while others explicitly target academic activities such as homework help and test preparation. Still others are structured as special interest clubs in science, math, computers, creative writing and journalism. Afterschool programs are sponsored by schools; community-based groups such as the YMCA or Boys and Girls Clubs; faith-based organizations; child care centers; municipalities; libraries; and volunteer groups. Providers regularly offer afterschool programs at various locations, including schools, community centers, church facilities, libraries, parks and private locations. In a growing number of places, schools and community organizations are working together to design and provide afterschool programming.

Interest in afterschool programming has grown from the educator’s perspective as well. With greater demands from state and federal accountability requirements, teachers, administrators and board members agree that many students need more time to work on academic skills. In APA’s school finance work across the country, especially in school finance adequacy studies, educators participating in professional judgment groups now typically recommend afterschool programming for those students who are behind. They have emphasized that such opportunities are needed to help students stay on track and reach academic proficiency.

Direct financing of afterschool programs has typically been handled outside the realm of state-local school finance systems, even though many educators believe that students would benefit significantly from afterschool programming and afterschool program providers would appreciate a much more stable funding base. Traditionally, funding for afterschool programs has been generated through a web of one-time and/or start-up foundation funds, federal program (both education and non-education) funds and/or a mixture of state and local sources. A recent list of recommended strategies for afterschool funding from The Finance Project -- make better use of existing resources; maximize federal revenue; create more flexibility in existing funding programs; build partnerships; and create new dedicated funding streams – illustrate the difference between how afterschool programs are currently financed and how those programs would be treated under more traditional school finance funding formulas.[1]

There is interest on the part of both afterschool providers and those who use the services in bringing afterschool programs into the mainstream of school finance, but several important questions must be addressed before such integration can take place. Critical among these questions are the following:

1. What are the goals of the afterschool programs? The greater the focus on improving academic progress and connecting students to other learning opportunities, not just child care, the higher the likelihood of inclusion in school finance systems.

2. Who will be served by such programs? What are the characteristics of participants? How would you count participants? How would you take the fiscal circumstances of participants and/or communities into consideration?

3. What is the cost of an afterschool program? Who will provide the service? How much time does/should the student spend in the program?

4. Do the offered programs have a track record of success in keeping students in school and in improving student achievement?

5. What are the best ways to integrate resources for afterschool programs into school finance formula mechanisms and assure that new revenues are targeted to students that need afterschool programs?

For the purposes of this paper, we assume that the answers to questions 1 and 4 above are the following: yes, the goals of afterschool programs are aligned with the greater focus on academic progress; and yes, there are many programs with a track record of success. In this paper, we will focus our attention on answering questions 2, 3 and 5. In plain language, these issues can be stated in three simple questions. Who should be served by afterschool programs? What are the best ways for a state to distribute resources to school districts and communities to provide afterschool programming? And finally, do the resources delivered cover the cost of effective afterschool programming.

In the following section, we examine the ”who” and “what ways” questions by briefly reviewing how these questions are addressed in other state contexts. After that, we will apply what we have learned in other states to the last year’s report from Advisory Group to see if its recommendation is likely to generate the expected resources for afterschool programming. The final section of the report gives our recommendations to the Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance regarding how to position funding for afterschool programming within the state education finance system.

How other states approach the funding of afterschool programs

The Rhode Island Afterschool Plus Alliance and APA agreed to examine the approach to afterschool funding used by a select group of states that allow or encourage education funding to be directed toward afterschool programming. This set of states includes Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee and Wyoming. This review examines state school funding systems; it does not examine TANF grants or other grants from state social or human services agencies to communities to support extended day programming, though many states use their Federal TANF dollars to make such grants. Further, states also receive important federal funds for afterschool programming, often through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. These federal funds were also not directly examined.

Funding Approaches in Selected States

APA reviewed secondary source descriptions of the funding of afterschool programs and talked with selected state education agencies (SEA) and state association staff to generate the state descriptions provided below. Generally, afterschool programs are funded through grant application programs or through a category of the school funding formula. In this section, each state’s method is described, then we summarize observations on each funding method.

Kentucky – Extended School Services. The Extended School Services (ESS) program, aimed at serving at risk students, was enacted in 1990 as part of the Kentucky Education Reform Act. The program is school based with curriculum designed by the local school council and is meant to be closely aligned with the regular school day curriculum. Individual programs provide homework help, individual instruction or tutoring. Districts have the choice to provide additional instruction time before or after school, evenings, Saturdays, summer, inter-session, or may request a waiver to administer ESS during the day. Funds are allocated to districts by the Department of Education through non-competitive grants. Funds must be used for ESS with up to 5% available for administrative costs and 2% for field trips. $32 million was allocated by the state for ESS in 2006.

New Jersey – New Jersey After 3. In June 2004, then Governor James McGreevey proposed a statewide afterschool program run by New Jersey After 3, a private, nonprofit organization. Designed as a private-public sector partnership, the funds contributed by the state were to be matched on a 1:1 basis with funds generated from other public and private sources. State budget appropriated funds for afterschool programs are allocated through the non-profit corporation New Jersey After-School Partnership through a grant application process. Grants typically are between $100,000 to $300,000, though some are as small as $50,000 and as much as $500,000. Programs that receive funds are required to be school based, partnered with community-based organizations, have a low student to teacher ratio and provide academic, recreational, and arts-related curriculum. For 2007, New Jersey made $12 million in grants available and aimed to serve 14,000 students.

South Carolina – the Education Accountability Act (EAA). South Carolina has a number of different funding sources for K-12 education. Under one of these sources, the EAA, the state requires academic plans for students lacking skills to perform at current grade level and provides funds for Summer School and extended day programming. The funds are directed to districts but are generated based on schools that receive a below average or unsatisfactory rating on the state report card. The funds do not flow through the funding formula but through the EAA.