Quality Counts 2005: Data Table

Adequacy Studies
Introduction \| Page 1 \| Page 2 \| Page 3 \| Sources & Notes Excel version \| PDF version ()

SOURCE: Special analysis for Education Week by Bruce D. Baker, University of Kansas ¹The first Illinois estimate listed is based on 1999-2000 data, and the standard that 83 percent of students meet improvement over time. This study includes an adjustment for efficiency. The second estimate is based on 2000 data only, and the standard that 67 percent of pupils meet or exceed the standard and 50 percent do so on all tests. There is no adjustment for efficient spending. ²The two Maryland estimates represent different estimates from the two professional-judgment panels convened for the study. ³These three estimates listed for New York represent the results of setting different outcome standards on 200 point index. The estimates for each of the three standards include only the costs for districts below the target performance standard for the 1999-2000 school year. ⁴These two estimates listed for New York show the differences within a single study as a result of using two different cost indices. The estimate using the New York Regional Cost Index was $13,420, and the estimate using the Geographic Cost of Education Index was $12,679. ⁵The two estimates provided for Texas are based on a 55 and 70 percent passing standard. Estimates include food and transportation costs. ⁶The authors of this study provided a range of values for the cost estimate based on the margin of error of the statistical method used. The two values listed represent the high and the low estimates.
STATE
	Study author(s)	Method
Arkansas	Lawrence O. Picus and associates	Evidence-based
Colorado	Augenblick and colleagues	Successful schools
Colorado	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
Illinois¹	Augenblick and colleagues	Successful schools
Illinois¹	Augenblick and colleagues	Successful schools
Indiana	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
Kansas	Augenblick and colleagues	Successful schools
Kansas	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
Kentucky	Lawrence O. Picus and associates	Evidence-based
Kentucky	Deborah A. Verstegen	Professional judgment
Maryland	Augenblick and colleagues	Successful schools
Maryland	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
Maryland (Low)²	Management, Planning & Analysis Inc. [MAP]	Professional judgment
Maryland (High)²	Management, Planning & Analysis Inc. [MAP]	Professional judgment
Missouri	Augenblick and colleagues	Successful schools
Missouri	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
Montana	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
Nebraska	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
New York	Duncombe and colleagues (Syracuse U.)	Cost function
New York	American Institutes for Research & MAP	Professional judgment
New York (140)³	Duncombe and colleagues (Syracuse U.)	Cost function
New York (150)³	Duncombe and colleagues (Syracuse U.)	Cost function
New York (160)³	Duncombe and colleagues (Syracuse U.)	Cost function
New York (Low)⁴	Standard & Poor's	Successful schools
New York (High)⁴	Standard & Poor's	Successful schools
North Dakota	Augenblick and colleagues	Professional judgment
Ohio	Augenblick and colleagues	Successful schools
Oregon	Oregon Quality Education Commission	Professional judgment
Texas	Reschovsky and Imazeki	Cost function
Texas (55%)⁵	Reschovsky and Imazeki	Cost function
Texas (70%)⁵	Reschovsky and Imazeki	Cost function
Texas (Low)⁶	Joint Select Committee (Texas A&M)	Cost function
Texas (High)⁶	Joint Select Committee (Texas A&M)	Cost function
Washington	Ranier Institute	Professional judgment
Wisconsin	Institute for Wisconsin's Future	Professional judgment
Wisconsin	Reschovsky and Imazeki	Cost function

Vol. 24, Issue 17, Pages 38