Fact Sheets

This section of the Access website provides Fact Sheets on the many state-level studies calculating various costs of education. Each fact sheet includes a summary of the major findings and methodologies of the study, a link to the study, and other key information. We divide cost studies into three general areas:

“Adequacy” Studies | No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Studies | NCLB Administrative Studies | NCLB Preliminary Admin Studies

 


Adequacy Studies: These studies attempt to determine the cost of providing all students with a specific “adequate” level of education. The definitions of “adequacy” in these studies vary. In many recent studies, the “100 percent proficiency” requirement of the No Child Left Behind Act is used.

Go to:

Alabama
2001: AL Dept. of Education study (not released) | Background | Related News

Alaska
2003: Alaska School District Cost Study, AIR

Arizona
2005: Lead With Five: Five Investments to Improve Arizona Public Education, P&A
2005: Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study, National Center on Edu. Finance

Arkansas
2006: Recalibrating the Arkansas School Funding Structure, P&A
2003: An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy…, P&A

California
2007: Aligning School Finance with Academic Standards, PPIC
2007: Efficiency and Adequacy in California School Finance…, AIR

Colorado
2006: Estimating Colorado School District Costs…, APA
2003: No fact sheet available. “Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education… A&M

Connecticut
2005: Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Connecticut, APA

Hawaii
2005: State of Hawaii Adequacy Funding Study, Thornton

Illinois
2001: …Calculating a Base Cost Figure and an Adjustment for At-Risk Pupils…, A&M

Indiana
2002: Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Indiana…, A&M

Kansas
2006: Elementary and Secondary Education…, KS Legislative Div. of Post Audit
2005: Estimating the Costs of Meeting Performance…, Duncombe & Yinger
2002: Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education…, A&M

Kentucky
2003: A Professional Judgment Approach to School Finance Adequacy…, P&A
2003: A ‘State of the Art’ Approach to School Finance Adequacy…, P&A
2003: Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education…, Verstegen & Assoc.

Maine
1999: Essential Programs and Services: Equity and Adequacy…, Maine EPRI

Maryland
2001: Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education…, A&M
2001: No fact sheet available. “A Professional...” (PDF), MAP | Background | News

Massachusetts
1991: Every Child a Winner, MA Business Alliance

Mississippi
1993: School Finance in Mississippi : A Proposal for an Alternate System, AVM

Minnesota
2006: Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Minnesota, APA

Missouri
2003: …Implementing the Result of the School Finance Adequacy Study…, A&S

Montana
2007: Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education, APA
2005: …Providing an Adequate Education in the State of Montana, Wood & Assoc.
2002: Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education…, A&M

Nebraska
2003: Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education…, A&M

Nevada
2006: Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Nevada, APA

New Hampshire
2000: An Exploration of Educational and Demographic Conditions…, MAP
1998: …Determining a Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments…, A&M

New Jersey
2003: Not released, APA | Related News (Outside Link)
1996: No fact sheet available. “Comprehensive Plan…, NJ DOE | Background

New Mexico
2008: An Independent Comprehensive Study of the New Mexico Public…, AIR

New York
Findings common to all New York cost studies
2004: New York Adequacy Study: Providing all children…, AIR & MAP
2004: Resource Adequacy Study for the [NY] Commission on Education Reform, S&P
2004: Estimating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education, NY Ed. Dept.

North Dakota
2003: Calculation of the Cost… & An Estimation of the Total Cost…, APA

Ohio
1997: …Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments…, A&M
1993: Determining a Base Student Cost Figure…, AVA

Oklahoma
2004-2005: Not released, APA

Oregon
2000: Oregon Quality Education Model-2000, Oregon QEC

Pennsylvania
2007: Costing Out the Resources Needed to Meet Pennsylvania’s Public…, APA

Rhode Island
2007: State of Rhode Island Education Adequacy Study, Wood & Assoc.

South Carolina
2000: Determining an Adequate Per Pupil Funding Level…, A&M

South Dakota
2006: Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in South Dakota, APA

Tennessee
2003: Calculation of the Cost of An Adequate Education, APA
1992: Basic Education Program, TN Board of Education

Texas
2004: …Meeting the TX Educational Accountability Standards, Imazeki & Reschovsky
2004: No fact sheet available. “School Outcomes…” (PDF), Taylor et al | Related News

Vermont
2004: Vermont Education Finance Study, National Conference of State Legislatures

Washington
2007: Washington Adequacy Funding Study, EPIC at CEPR
2006: Washington Learns: Successful District Study, P&A
2006: An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance… P&A
2003: What Will it Take? Defining a Quality Education…, several organizations

Wisconsin
2007: Moving From Good to Great in Wisconsin…, Odden and Picus
2002: Funding Our Future…, Institute for WI’s Future

Wyoming
2005: …Recalibrating Wyoming’s Block Grant School Funding Formula, P&A
1997-2002: A Proposed Cost-Based Block Grant Model…& Proposed Revisions…, MAP


NCLB Studies: These studies are specifically meant to determine the cost of NCLB’s “100 percent proficiency” mandate. Very few of these studies have been done.

 

Go to:

Ohio
2003: Projected Costs of Implementing [NCLB]…, Driscoll & Fleeter

Texas
2004: Does [NCLB] Place a Fiscal Burden on States?, Imazeki & Reschovsky


NCLB Admin Studies: These studies are much more limited in scope, and are intended only to determine the adminstrative cost of implementing the testing requirements and supplemental education services mandated by NCLB.

Go to:

National
2005: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses…, GAO

Connecticut
2005: Cost of Implementing the Federal [NCLB] Act…, CT State Dept. of Ed.

Hawaii
2004: Estimating the New, Marginal Costs of No Child Left Behind in Hawaii, APA

Minnesota
2004: Evaluation Report: No Child Left Behind, Office of the Legislative Auditor (MN)


NCLB Preliminary Admin Studies: NCLB was signed into law in January 2002. The following states issued preliminary reports between 2002 and 2004. The range of analysis of the fiscal impact of NCLB in these reports is narrow, that is, it deals only administrative costs, and numbers are speculative.

Go to:

New Hampshire
2003:Financial Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on the State of New Hampshire & Review of the Cost Analysis of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, Accountability Works
2003: Updated Analysis of Cost Impact of ESEA – No Child Left Behind Act on New Hampshire, NHSAA

Vermont
2002: Vermont Society for the Study of Education: Policy Discussion Paper – The Federal “No Child Left Behind” Law: Should Vermont Take the Money?William Mathis

West Virginia
2003: A Working Document on Federal Funding of State Programs for Implementing No Child Left Behind in West Virginia Schools, Division of Administrative Services


AIR: American Institutes for Research
A&M: Augenblick & Myers, Inc.
APA: Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.
A&S: Augenblick & Silverstein
AVA: Augenblick, Van de Waters & Myers
MAP:Management Analysis and Planning, Inc
P&A: Picus and Associates