Opinion ID: 2524503
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Adjustments for Characteristics of Student Populations

Text: [ถ 73] As MAP explained: Some number of students in every school district present extraordinary educational challenges that frequently require services of a nature or quantity that imply extra costs.... The proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model has embedded within it a strategy for meeting the challenges presented by students with special characteristics. Critical to the assessment of whether these adjustments for students who present special challenges are cost-based is the underlying principle that MAP built into the model of small schools, small classes, teaching specialists, and professional development resources for teachers. If the classes and schools remain small, MAP contends the adjustments are adequate and represent the reasonable additional costs schools will incur to deal with these students. It is interesting to note that MAP makes no mention of any additional costs that may be incurred by schools which are much larger than the prototypes. Most Wyoming students attend schools that are much larger than those assumed in the prototype. [25]
[ถ 74] Certain types of students require additional instruction which results in higher than average educational costs. Generally, special needs students are those considered to be at risk students and gifted and talented students. At-risk students include economically disadvantaged youth (EDY) and limited English speaking students (LES students). [26] MAP and the legislature concluded additional funding was needed to allow Wyoming schools to properly deal with students at-risk of failure. At-risk students require specially tailored programs and more time spent on all aspects of academic endeavor in order to improve their academic achievement. The primary need of schools with concentrations of these students is increased adult attention in the school setting. The record contains no evidence of any effort to determine either the actual expenditures of Wyoming schools or the cost schools should incur when dealing with at-risk students appropriately. [ถ 75] In the 1997 order, the trial court determined the number of students who have applied for and are qualified to receive federally subsidized free and reduced priced lunches, used in legislation as an indicator of EDY, was questionable and the trigger for the additional funding was arbitrary. Using such lunch counts, particularly at the secondary levels, may under count the number of economically disadvantaged youth if, for varying reasons, they do not take advantage of the federal program. The formula for eligibility for such adjustment is an arbitrary 150% of the statewide average per district. No adjustment is provided for school districts that have 149% of the statewide average and complete adjustment is made for anyone with more than 150%. [ถ 76] The trial court similarly found that the adjustment for LES restricts reimbursement to an arbitrary cutoff point. It reserved ruling on these issues while the legislature reviewed this problem. However, in the 1999 order, the trial court upheld the EDY and LES adjustments even though there was no change in those adjustments and no new evidence to indicate the allocations were cost-based. The trial court was apparently convinced that the MAP model made accommodations in other areas, such as smaller class sizes, and therefore the EDY and LES adjustments were constitutional. We reverse, and our conclusion is supported by the trial court's 1997 findings. [ถ 77] In addressing EDY, the model provides $500 for each student enrolled in the free and reduced lunch program in school districts where the concentration of these students is equal to or greater than 150 percent of the statewide average. Schools with 149 percent of the statewide average and schools with students at risk for reasons other than the need to enroll in the free lunch program receive no additional funding. This formula cannot, and does not, represent the real and appropriate cost of educating EDY. The testimony of Laramie County School District No. One in this case is painfully similar to its testimony over five years earlier in Campbell. Then, the school district received only half of the $1.2 million required to fund the costs of its alternative high school, an undisputedly appropriate method of dealing with at-risk students, leaving the rest to be deducted from other programs. Under the new system, Laramie County's situation remains unchanged. Not only is the EDY adjustment not cost-based, its completely arbitrary 150 percent trigger results in dramatic differences in funding even among districts that border each other and, consequently, are likely to have similar student characteristics. While use of the free lunch enrollment may serve as a partial proxy by roughly identifying EDY, it fails to capture students equally at-risk for other reasons. MAP rejected other measures such as identifying low achieving students by arguing it would reward failing schools. While that argument may have superficial appeal, it ignores the reality that a large concentration of low achieving students causes increased costs. [27] [ถ 78] The amount of the supplement for EDY is likewise arbitrary and admittedly not based on the cost of the full range of at-risk programs. Instead the $500 figure was based upon the approximate cost per student of a program called Success for All which was aimed at improved reading at the elementary level. [28] While this program may be one appropriate method for dealing with at-risk elementary school children, relying on it exclusively ignores the needs of the full range of at-risk students. The record contains no evidence concerning the cost of dealing with economically disadvantaged middle or high school youth which, we can assume, requires more than enhanced reading programs and may necessitate programs and services such as alternative schools, after school programs, and additional security. [ถ 79] Similar issues are raised with the formula for supplemental funding of the costs incurred in educating LES students. When certain concentrations of these students occur in a district, extra resources, such as bilingual aides and teachers, are needed. Without any evidentiary support, MAP recommended additional funding where such students exceed 20 students per grade level or 25 percent of the schoolwide ADM. Then, based upon experience in Connecticut, the funding was proposed and adopted at 1.15 times the number of identified students, or approximately $900 per student. Given the lack of evidence that $900 reflects the actual additional costs and the relatively small amount of funding likely to be required to cover those costs, actual reimbursement of identifiable, legitimate, state-approved costs, such as bilingual teachers, more appropriately meets the standard established in Campbell. [ถ 80] The state's response to the obvious problems with these formulas repeats MAP's mantra that small schools and small class sizes are already contained in the model and are the most recognized method for dealing with at-risk students. The state further contends that schools are free to use their block grants to add more teachers and create smaller classes. This argument wears fairly thin when it is always conditioned upon the caveat that the model, and its class sizes, was only a recommendation to the legislature which was free to, and did, adopt somewhat larger classes and fewer teachers. Further, even the state agrees no other components of the models were overfunded, which leaves the schools without any real option but to take funds from other programs. To do so would damage those same programs by reducing their funds below cost. [ถ 81] The problems in developing a formula to accurately capture the true cost of adequately dealing with at-risk students seem insurmountable. If so, the legislature must assure that schools are fully reimbursed for the funds necessary to educate at-risk students with the most effective and current methods possible. No one can argue the urgent need our society faces to minimize the failure of students and the increased social costs that unavoidably follow. We hold the adjustments for funding EDY and LES students result in disparities in funding which are not justified by any compelling state interest and which do not reflect the cost of adequately educating these students. The state is directed to fund the actual and necessary costs of EDY and LES students, subject to state oversight. Although we do not foreclose the possibility of the state in the future developing an accurate formula with which to distribute adequate funds in lieu of direct reimbursement, for the above stated reasons, accomplishing that task will not be easy or swift. Until that time, we cannot allow the needs of at-risk students to be ignored or other students to be denied a complete education because a school's funds must be diverted to address those needs. [29] We do not foreclose the possibility that some portion of the actual costs may be covered by the $500 EDY supplement and the 15 percent LES supplement and do not prohibit the use of those formulas for partial funding. These changes shall be implemented on or before July 1, 2002. [ถ 82] Finally, the challengers argue the funding for gifted and talented students is arbitrary and attenuated from actual costs. MAP recommended, and the legislation provides, additional funding so that gifted and talented students' potential may be realized. The state provides an additional $9 per total ADM to fund gifted and talented programs. This amount is based upon the assumption that three percent of the entire student population is comprised of gifted students. [30] Over time, society's view and the views of educational researchers concerning intelligence and giftedness have changed. There is no objective definition of gifted. Rather, a broad measure of intelligence has been recognized. Where there used to be a unitary construct in which gifted students were believed simply to have more of what everyone else had, there is now a more refined definition[ ] ... where giftedness is seen as multi-dimensional. [31] The significance of this shift in the definition of giftedness is that [t]here is an emerging consensus in the field that efforts should move from a focus on nurturing the talents of a few identified students to programs that aid to seek out and develop talents in as many students as possible. Students who are educated using methods focusing on the talent development of as many students as possible have been shown to perform as well as or better than students who have been taught in more dated and conventional gifted and talented programs. [ถ 83] MAP recommended Wyoming revise its program due to the modern view of giftedness, and MAP recommended a modest increase in statewide funding for gifted and talented students. Ultimately, the legislature provided more than double the amount recommended by MAP. [ถ 84] The gifted and talented program, which existed prior to the new legislation, provided that districts could identify up to 3 percent of their students as gifted and receive up to $150 per student or a prorated amount assuming the state's $350,000 limit had been exceeded. The new statute results in approximately $450,000 being appropriated for gifted students, but it is distributed on an ADM basis and results in approximately $9 per ADM. There is a net increase in funding distributed on an equitable basis. While this court may have reached a different result concerning how much money is enough to allow gifted students to develop their maximum potential, that judgment is the prerogative of the legislature. No evidence exists in the record to support a finding that this approach does not meet the standards of the constitution.
[ถ 85] No adjustment is made for the admittedly higher costs of educating vocational students. The state contends those costs are contained within the assumptions in the model for numbers of teachers and costs of equipment and supplies. However, those amounts were based on statewide average expenditures, which necessarily resulted in penalizing schools with extensive vocational programs. Moreover, the trial court determined in its 1997 order: There are higher costs associated with the provision of vocational and technical training in Wyoming schools, and there is no provision in the prototypical models for funding those higher costs. However, without any change in the model to adjust for vocational and technical training, the trial court upheld the absence of a vocational adjustment in its 1999 order. We reverse the trial court's 1999 holding as being clearly erroneous and base our conclusion on the record evidence from both the 1997 and 1999 trials which is consistent with the trial court's 1997 findings. [ถ 86] The elimination of disparities required by Campbell did not anticipate the reduction in existing programs. Vocational and technical training is included in the legislature's basket of educational goods and services. MAP has admitted [i]t is generally accepted in the education community that vocational education is more expensive to provide than other forms of instruction. What has traditionally made vocational education more costly than academic education are relatively smaller classes and the need for more costly equipment and supplies. We hold that, in order to provide vocational and technical training, the actual costs of providing vocational teachers and equipment must be examined, included as a line item in the MAP model, and funded accordingly. These changes shall be implemented on or before July 1, 2002.
[ถ 87] The cost figures in the most current legislation do not account for inflation since 1996-97. Both MAP and the trial court recognize the obvious. There will undoubtedly come a time when inflationary cost increases render the funding levels inadequate to deliver the basket. The legislature addressed this problem in ง 21-13-309(r), which provides: (r) The joint appropriations interim committee shall submit a recommendation to the legislature and governor, not later than November 1 of each year, regarding whether an external cost adjustment should be made, and if so, the amount of the adjustment. Of course, neither the legislature nor the governor is obligated to act on such a recommendation, if made. [ถ 88] In this regard, the only inflationary adjustment since at least 1996-97 has been the adoption of ง 21-13-309(o)(i)(A), which provides 1.3 percent for new inflation effective for the 2000-2001 school year, but specifically excludes any inflation adjustment for the years preceding the 2000-2001 school year. See ง 21-13-309(o)(i)(A)(II). The tough question for both the legislature and this court is when and how should inflation adjustments be made in order to ensure the finance system is consistently cost-based. Wyoming teacher salaries now rank 42nd in the nation. Salaries actually being paid by districts are now 6 percent to 40 percent greater than the salaries within the statutory prototype. By pure force of logic, it is evident the 1996-97 salaries which were found to adequately reflect the cost of teachers at that time have not been held constant by the funding contained in the statute and are now significantly below costs. [32] While we agree that the lack of an internal, automatic cost adjustment in the statute may not in and of itself render the system unconstitutional, without such adjustments, legislative inaction appears inevitable, and, ultimately, funding of education will be below cost in contravention of the constitution. [33] [ถ 89] As previously noted, MAP advised the legislature that teacher salaries must be inflation-adjusted on an annual or, at a minimum, biennial basis and that the model components must be thoroughly reviewed every five to six years to ensure continued cost-based validity. Therefore, we hold that the legislature shall conduct a review of all the components every five years to ensure that funding accurately reflects the actual costs school districts are paying because of current market or economic conditions. Because the numbers contained within the model and codified in the statute are based on actual 1996-97 costs, an inflation adjustment is overdue. Four years have passed, and only a 1.3 percent adjustment has occurred which does not reflect the actual inflation during those four years. Based on the state's own evidence in this record and common sense, we cannot condone that result. [ถ 90] This court does not relish the idea of reviewing this matter on a continuing basis in perpetuity and is quite sure the legislature does not desire that result either. As long as the state continues to rely upon a cost of education model based upon historic actual costs to determine the appropriate funding for schools, regular and timely inflation adjustments are essential to funding the real cost of education. We adopt the opinion of the state's experts [34] and hold that the model and statute must be adjusted for inflation/deflation every two years at a minimum. Given the acceptance of all parties of validity of the WCLI, adjustments made consistent with that index will be presumed to be adequate. If other methods of adjustment are chosen by the legislature, they must be structured to assure quality of education remains adequate. It will be of great assistance to this court and all interested parties if the adjustment is adopted as a separate component of the model which would avoid the potential confusion, as occurred in this case, whether adjustments to the model for other reasons should be considered as inflation adjustments. The model and statute must be adjusted for inflation no later than July 1, 2002, and each biennium thereafter so long as a cost of education model using historic costs is relied upon for the basis of education funding. The amount of the adjustment required will depend, obviously, on the timing of the adjustment. [ถ 91] Because teacher quality is critical to providing a constitutional education and all parties recognize the looming national problem of a teacher shortage, the legislature is also directed to monitor the supply of qualified teachers and take appropriate action should national conditions continue to worsen to the detriment of Wyoming schools. It is unacceptable for essential teaching positions to remain unfilled or to be consistently filled by unqualified applicants.
[ถ 92] MAP and the legislature also recognized the model needed adjustments to accommodate differences in schools due to size and location which impact their costs of education. The question we must resolve is whether the adjustments are based on actual differences in cost or whether they represent unconstitutional disparities in funding.