Welcome Task Force Members & Guests

Task Force Members, if possible, please change your screen name to be TF_Your_Name, please have your camera on and relevant documents available at the beginning of the meeting.

• Welcome to the public who are watching the meeting via Live Streaming. We will have a breakout session in today’s meeting that will not be streamed. These discussions will not involve any decision making and a readout from each breakout will be provided when the full meeting resumes.

​

• If the public has any questions or comments, these can be sent via email to Amy Carman at carman_a@cde.state.co.us

​

​

1

A few notes prior to the meeting starting:

SB 23-287 School Finance Task Force

​

2

​

September 12, 2023

​

Virtual Meeting

Overview of Today’s Agenda

1. Welcome & Norms Review (10 mins) (Info & Awareness)
2. Common Questions (5 mins) (Info & Awareness)
3. Vision Setting (10 mins) (Discussion)
4. Project Plan Buildout (30 min) (Discussion)
5. Review of Roberts Rules of Order (15 mins) (Discussion / Action)
6. Break (10 mins)
7. Adequacy Studies Parameters Development (80 mins) (Discussion)

3

Technical Etiquette

4

Microsoft Teams Etiquette:

• Task Force Members, if possible, please have your screen name as TF_Your_Name. All other Participants please have your screen name as Your_Name_Role.
• Please do not utilize the chat function
• If you wish you to comment, please use the raise hand function within Teams and wait to be called on by the facilitator
• Please do not interrupt someone as they are speaking

Guidelines for Interaction, Deliberation and Collaboration

5

• Appreciate that a variety of perspectives are represented throughout this Task Force
• Task Force Members should assume good intentions from other Task Force members
• All Task Force Members should strive to understand the intent of what has gone before and what didn’t work
• When introducing or discussing new topics, please endeavour to provide a clear, concise breakdown of factors, what policies drive them and the funding that goes into each one
• Task Force Members are responsible to set aside sufficient time between meetings to accomplish all readings and work
• Please appreciate that Task Force Members are performing different roles then their day to day positions

Overview of Today’s Agenda

• Welcome & Norms Review (10 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Common Questions (5 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Vision Setting (10 mins) (Discussion)
• Review of Roberts Rules of Order (15 mins) (Discussion / Action)
• Project Plan Buildout (30 min) (Discussion)
• Break (10 mins)
• Adequacy Studies Parameters Development (80 mins) (Discussion)

6

Common Questions

7

• Why are we meeting just virtually?
• Why are we meeting for only 3 hours?
• Is there a complete list of participants?
• Can 2 Task Force Members talk about the Task Force?
• Shouldn’t we wait for the Adequacy Studies to be completed?

Overview of Today’s Agenda

• Welcome & Norms Review (10 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Common Questions (5 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Vision Setting (10 mins) (Discussion)
• Project Plan Buildout (30 min) (Discussion)
• Review of Roberts Rules of Order (15 mins) (Discussion / Action)
• Break (10 mins)
• Adequacy Studies Parameters Development (80 mins) (Discussion)

8

Visioning: A Note From Chuck

• Let the Task Force be a Task Force
• Do our best at accomplishing the job we were asked to do
• Role of the Chair, Facilitator, CDE, & Staff

9

Overview of Today’s Agenda

• Welcome & Norms Review (10 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Common Questions (5 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Vision Setting (10 mins) (Discussion)
• Project Plan Buildout (30 min) (Discussion)
• Review of Roberts Rules of Order (15 mins) (Discussion / Action)
• Break (10 mins)
• Adequacy Studies Parameters Development (80 mins) (Discussion)

10

Task Force Input Survey Review

11

Small Group Discussion Topics

• What were your takeaways from the Input Survey Results?
• What surprised you?
• What comment or question would you like further clarification around?

​

Please be prepared to share out a summary of your conversation with the Whole Group

Take 5 mins to review and discuss the survey results

Project Plan Feedback

12

Tuesday, 12th

• Vision Setting
• Project Plan Buildout
• Adequacy Study Parameters Design

Tuesday, 17th

• Proposal Review/Refinement
• Review and discuss current history and purpose of Cost of Living
• Review and discuss effect on PPR, Avg Staff Salary, and other district characteristics
• Develop 2 Proposals to model

Tuesday, 14th

• Proposal Review/Refinement
• Review current challenges & effects of mill levy overrides
• Devel 2 proposals to model
• Review and discuss current size factor
• Discuss alternative methods to adjust for size & geography
• Develop 3 proposals to model

​

​

Tuesday, 5th

• Review & discuss models and the interplay between proposals-
• Refine & align on proposals (identify additional modeling requirements)
• Vote on Recommendations for
• Prioritizing Student Need
• Cost of Living Factor
• Multiplicative Indexes

​

Friday, 12th

• Discuss and provide feedback (In person) for the Final Report

​

​

Model Development & Buildout

Note: Task Force Members will be able to provide feedback outside of the optional Jan meeting

Overview of Today’s Agenda

• Welcome & Norms Review (10 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Common Questions (5 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Vision Setting (10 mins) (Discussion)
• Project Plan Buildout (30 min) (Discussion)
• Review of Roberts Rules of Order (15 mins) (Discussion / Action)
• Break (10 mins)
• Adequacy Studies Parameters Development (80 mins) (Discussion)

13

Context

14

Task Force Charge

• Examine and make recommendations concerning making the school finance formula simpler, less regressive, and more adequate, understandable, transparent, equitable and student-centered
• Generate Report: Incorporate recommendations into one report

Why is it important?

• Draw on a wide range of expertise
• Attempts to remove politics from the equation
• Allows for space to discuss and dive deeper on particular subjects

But what about…

• Timing can be challenging…
• There might not be a good answer…
• Too many good ideas….

Deciding on a Recommendation

There are a few ways for the work group to get to a recommendation

• Unilaterally
• Consensus
• Majority Rule

​

Things to consider

• Ensuring all voices are heard
• Collaborating around a solution
• Giving space for meaningful discussion & revision
• Coming to a decision within a timely manner

Helpful Tools

15

Robert's Rules of Order

Created in 1876 as a way to establish a Constitution and Bylaws for organizations through a

• Structure of the meeting Agenda and debate.
• Motions; including making, seconding, debating, modifying and amending motions.
• Sufficient majority and simple majority and which decisions are appropriate to them.
• Establishment of a quorum.
• Definition of membership.
• Voting rights of presiding officer and voting procedures.

​

Multiple Ways of Providing Input

With today’s technology and facilitation, there are many inclusive ways to ensure input and ideas are collected from all parties. The following are some examples:

• Surveys
• Small Group Discussions
• Large Group Discussions
• Opportunities for Public Comment
• Minority Reports
• Collaborative Whiteboards / Documents

​

​

Models & Data

Helpful to understand the potential impact and effects of decisions. In theory, data can be helpful to provide objectivity to a otherwise complex discussion.

​

​

DillingerRAD’s Recommendation…a little bit of everything

16

Proposed Process for Decision Making

1. Review the content through pre-reads, presentations, and discussion
2. Identify, develop, and align on 2 proposals to model
3. Model & review data discussing impact, unintended effects, and potential outcomes
4. Revise and finalize a draft recommendation
5. Utilizing aspects of Robert’s Rules a member of the Task Force makes a motion to accept the proposed recommendation
6. Another Task Force member must 2nd it
7. The Task Force is given the opportunity to discuss
8. Once points of discussion have been raised the facilitator will move to take a vote on whether to accept or reject the proposed recommendation
9. If a majority vote to accept the proposal, it will be incorporated into the final report, if not, the proposal must be revised and finalized again (Step 4)

​

5 Minute Break

17

Today’s Agenda

• Welcome & Norms Review (10 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Common Questions (5 mins) (Info & Awareness)
• Vision Setting (10 mins) (Discussion)
• Project Plan Buildout (30 min) (Discussion)
• Review of Roberts Rules of Order (15 mins) (Discussion / Action)
• Break (10 mins)
• Adequacy Studies Parameters Development (80 mins) (Discussion)

18

Adequacy Study - Desired Outcomes

19

Large Group Discussion Topic

​

What specific actions are you hoping to come from the published results of the 2 Adequacy Studies?

Adequacy Study Parameter Development

20

The charge of the task force:

​

• The task force is required to set parameters to examine and make recommendations concerning the components and costs necessary to adequately provide Colorado students with a free and uniform public education.

• The department is required to contract with two independent entities to conduct school finance adequacy studies.

​

• The department must select entities that represent different perspectives concerning school finance.

​

• The independent entities’ report of findings and recommendations must be submitted to the task force and to the General Assembly by January 3, 2025.

Adequacy Study Parameter Development

21

Today

Next Meeting

Defining the “ask” for task force members

22

• The task force is required to set parameters to examine and make recommendations concerning the components and costs necessary to adequately provide Colorado students with a free and uniform public education.

​

• Each task force breakout group should determine, for 1 adequacy study:

​

• Should specific method, or methods be used?
• Should studies consider specific educational outcomes or performance levels?
• Are there any key considerations that should be included as parameters?
• Are there any additional analyses that should be included in the adequacy study?

​

• Across each above consideration, what are the highest priorities for each study given a limited budget?

Adequacy Studies

23

Goals & Features

A traditional adequacy study has not recently been conducted for the Colorado legislature.

An adequacy, or costing out, study aims to determine the resources needed for students to reach some level of education outcomes.

​

1. Types: There are 4 methods for resource determination, each which seek to accomplish the above goal.
1. Typically, studies include a combination of models to provide multiple perspectives.
2. Contents: studies typically consider student and district characteristics, and how they relate to education outcomes.

​

Types of Adequacy Studies

24

Typically, studies include a combination of models to provide multiple perspectives.

There are four general methods for conducting adequacy studies:

​

1. Professional Judgement
2. Evidence-Based
3. Cost Function
4. Successful Schools/Districts

​

​

Each method leverages different perspectives and has strengths and limitations.

Professional Judgement

25

Example: Nevada Adequacy Study (pg. 38-57)

In Professional Judgement studies, panels of education professionals create prototype schools and determine costs of elements necessary for success.

​

​

​

Source: A Review of School Funding Adequacy Studies. (2023)

Kentucky Legislative Research Commission.

Overview

Professional Judgement: key considerations

26

Professional Judgement studies require specific school resources to be included in prototype schools.

​

Key considerations:

• Should any specific school levels be specified for a prototype school?
• Elementary, middle and high
• Specific grades (K-5, 6-8, 9-12)
• Should school size be a consideration?
• Should any specific staffing types be required to be included in study as part of prototype school?
• Should specific staffing costs be adjusted for cost-of-living?
• Should study contain adjustments should be made for students with additional needs?
• At-risk, economic disadvantage
• English Language Learners
• Special education students
• Gifted and talented students

​

​

​

​

Evidence- based

27

Example: Wyoming Adequacy Study (pg. 17-54)

In evidence-based studies, experts use education research to identify resources a school needs to meet state accountability standards.

​

​

Source: A Review of School Funding Adequacy Studies. (2023)

Kentucky Legislative Research Commission.

Overview

Evidence-based: key considerations

28

Evidence-based studies require specific school resources to be included in prototype schools.

​

Key considerations:

• What school levels should be considered?
• Elementary, middle and high?
• Specific grades?
• Should school size be a consideration?
• Should any specific staffing types be required to be included in study?
• Should specific staffing costs be adjusted for cost-of-living?
• What adjustments should be made for students with additional needs?
• At-risk, economic disadvantage
• English Language Learners
• Special education students
• Gifted and talented students
• Are there specific research-based interventions the study should be required to consider?

​

​

​

​

​

Cost function

29

Example: Utah Adequacy Study (pg. 35-46)

In cost function studies, experts use statistical analysis to identify funding levels needed to achieve level of performance.

​

Source: A Review of School Funding Adequacy Studies. (2023)

Kentucky Legislative Research Commission.

Cost function: key considerations

30

Cost function studies relies on analysis of the factors that explain differences in spending across district, controlling for performance.

​

Key question: what “factors held constant” that impact student performance should study researchers consider?

​

​

​

​

​

Image sourced from Jacobson, A., Silverstein, J., Willis, J., Diaz, J., Fermanich, M., Piscatelli, J., Lewis, R., McClellan,

P., Durodoye, R. (2021). Utah Funding Study: Phase 2 Report. WestEd, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates

Successful schools/

districts

31

Example: Maryland Adequacy Study (pg. 64-75) Utah Adequacy Study (pg. 63-75)

In successful schools or districts studies, experts use spending levels of schools or districts currently meeting outcome goals to estimate funding levels necessary statewide.

Source: A Review of School Funding Adequacy Studies. (2023)

Kentucky Legislative Research Commission.

Successful schools/districts: key considerations

32

Successful schools or districts studies relies on analysis of schools or districts currently meeting desired outcomes, and extrapolating spending levels across the state.

​

Key considerations:

• Should the study focus on successful schools, or successful districts?
• Is spending data accurate and reliable at the school level to generate meaningful insight?
• What should the consultant consider when identifying a successful school or district?
• Performance vs. growth?
• District characteristics
• Should study contain adjustments for students with additional needs?
• At-risk, economic disadvantage
• English Language Learners
• Special education students
• Gifted and talented students

​

​

​

​

Source: A Comprehensive Review of State Adequacy Studies since 2003. (2014).

Picus Odden and Associates and APA Consulting.

Common features of adequacy studies

33

Outcomes

Education Outcomes

​

Adequacy studies often contain specific educational outcomes or levels of performance for state students.

​

• Maryland aligned their study to the Maryland College and Career-Readiness Standards.
• Wyoming used a “basket of educational goods” largely aligned to curriculum and graduation requirements.
• Utah used the “minimum school program” concept and primary principles for education as defined in statute (reasonably equal opportunity for all, local participation and determination).

​

Source: Maryland, Wyoming, Utah adequacy studies.

Educational Outcomes: key considerations

34

Defining educational outcomes is key in ensuring adequacy studies accurately reflect state goals and necessary spending.

​

Key considerations:

• The task force is required to set parameters to examine and make recommendations concerning the components and costs necessary to adequately provide Colorado students with a free and uniform public education.

​

• Colorado’s accountability framework centers the belief that every student should receive an excellent education and graduate ready to succeed.

​

• Colorado’s performance frameworks use academic growth, achievement and postsecondary and workforce readiness data to accredit districts and assign school plan types, or ratings.

​

​

​

​

​

Source: CDE.

Common features of adequacy studies

35

Other Features

Other Features

​

Adequacy studies often contain additional analyses of state funding systems to guide policymakers:

​

• Current System Analysis: reviewing the current funding formula or mechanism, including goals and definitions of what is adequate (outcomes, performance, state definitions).
• Alignment: on a common understanding of the goals of the system (what outcomes do education stakeholders want to see?)
• Comparisons: how are other states funding education and tackling these challenges?
• Equity: what are the distributional impacts of the current and future system?

​

​

​

​

Best practices for adequacy study design

36

Best Practices

​

In a review of 39 adequacy studies for Maryland, researchers identified the following best practices:

​

• Clear focus on improvement of student performance
• The potential value of case studies in future work
• Importance of state policy makers and local stakeholders in the process
• Combining multiple methods in each state study
• Selection of professional judgment panels
• Number of professional judgment panels
• Accurately representing compensation in the analysis

​

​

​

​

Source: A Comprehensive Review of State Adequacy Studies since 2003. (2014).

Picus Odden and Associates and APA Consulting.

Defining the “ask” for task force members:

Maryland example

37

“Chapter 288 requires that a follow-up study of the adequacy of education funding in the State be undertaken approximately 10 years after the enactment of the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act. The study must include, at a minimum (1) adequacy cost studies that identify (a) a base funding level for students without special needs and (b) per pupil weights for students with special needs, where weights can be applied to the base funding level, and (2) an analysis of the effects of concentrations of poverty on adequacy targets. The adequacy cost study will be based on Maryland’s College and Career-Ready Standards (MCCRS) adopted by the State Board of Education. The adequacy cost study will include two years of results from new state assessments aligned with the standards. These assessments are scheduled to be administered beginning in the 2014-2015 school year.

​

There are several additional components mandated to be included in the study. These components include evaluations of (1) the impact of school size, (2) the Supplemental Grants program, (3) the use of Free and Reduced-Price Meals eligibility as the proxy for identifying economic disadvantage, (4) the federal Community Eligibility Provision in Maryland, (5) prekindergarten services and the funding of such services, (6) equity and the current wealth calculation, and (7) the impact of increasing and decreasing enrollments on local school systems. The study must also include an update of the Maryland Geographic Cost of Education Index.”

Maryland Adequacy Study (pg. 2)

Defining the “ask” for task force members

38

• The task force is required to set parameters to examine and make recommendations concerning the components and costs necessary to adequately provide Colorado students with a free and uniform public education.

​

• Each task force breakout group should determine, for 1 adequacy study:

​

• Should specific method, or methods be used?
• Should studies consider specific educational outcomes or performance levels?
• Are there any key considerations that should be included as parameters?
• Are there any additional analyses that should be included in the adequacy study?

​

• Across each above consideration, what are the highest priorities for each study given a limited budget?

Breakout groups for discussion

39

• Details: the facilitation and technical teams will create 2 groups and associated breakout rooms for task force members to discuss and generate adequacy study parameters for 1 study per team.

​

• Timing: The teams will participate in breakout rooms and follow the timeline below for this discussion.

​

• Breakout for Question 1: Should specific method, or methods be used? (10 mins)

​

Return to task force as a whole for discussion and review. (5 mins)

​

• Breakout for Question 2: Should studies consider specific educational outcomes or performance levels?

(10 mins)

​

Return to task force as a whole for discussion and review. (5 mins)

​

• Breakout for Question 3: Are there any key considerations that should be included as parameters? (10 mins)

​

Return to task force as a whole for discussion and review. (5 mins)

​

• Breakout for Question 4: Are there any additional analyses that should be included in the adequacy study? (10 mins)

​

Return to task force as a whole for discussion and review. (5 mins)

​

• Finalizing Parameters: next meeting, task force members will review the generated parameters, and vote on the approval of the study parameters using previously discussed voting procedures.

​

Next Steps

• Finalize Project Plan
• Develop preread for next meeting

40

Closing

41

​

Our next *Tentative* meeting is September 29, 2023, 11 am- 3 pm

(in our 3 hour meetings we WILL take a mid meeting break)

​

​

Recap of today’s discussions

​

​