Introduction - School Finance Research Collaborative



A Review of theMichigan Education Finance StudyOctober 20, 2016Prepared by JL Myers ConsultingFor the Oakland Schools Education Foundation Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc338625702 \h 3Michigan Request For Proposals (RFP) PAGEREF _Toc338625703 \h 3Adequacy Studies and the Uses in Other States PAGEREF _Toc338625704 \h 4Understanding a key component of Adequacy: Standards PAGEREF _Toc338625705 \h 5Adjustments for Student and District Needs PAGEREF _Toc338625706 \h 5Student Needs PAGEREF _Toc338625707 \h 5District Needs PAGEREF _Toc338625708 \h 7MESR Strengths and Weaknesses PAGEREF _Toc338625709 \h 10Critique of Seven Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc338625710 \h 11Recommendations for Moving Forward PAGEREF _Toc338625711 \h 13Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc338625712 \h 14References PAGEREF _Toc338625713 \h 15Appendix A: Summary of State Adequacy Studies PAGEREF _Toc338625714 \h 16Appendix B: Sample Adequacy Study RFP PAGEREF _Toc338625715 \h 18Appendix C: Sample Qualifications PAGEREF _Toc338625716 \h 20Appendix D: Conclusions from Notably Successful Districts analysis PAGEREF _Toc338625717 \h 21IntroductionThis report is a review and analysis of the Michigan Education Study Report (MESR) and is prepared in response to a contract between the Oakland Schools Education Foundation and JL Myers Consulting (JLMC). JLMC is a consulting business owned by John L. Myers who has nearly 40 years of experience analyzing state school finance policies. Using his experience and insight, this report will review all sections of the MESR with special attention to the building blocks that will support a new and improved state school funding formula. In addition, this review will provide recommendations for the next steps needed in Michigan for improving school funding policy to insure Michigan provides an adequate education for all of its citizens. Nationally, Standards-Based improvement of public education guided education policy for the last four decades (McClure, 2005). With the shift from local control of education policy to State and Federal standards and requirements, adequacy studies were developed in response to understanding how to fund those shifts in expectations of students, teachers, schools, and districts. What these studies revealed was that education providers, mostly local school districts, are held accountable for standards that they do not have the resources to reach. In other words, adequacy studies determine the annual operating resources needed to meet standards specific to State expectations. Several states have been successful in using adequacy studies in determining school funding formulas, including Maryland and Pennsylvania. In the best cases, these studies of state formulas result in setting a base cost level for all students and funding for adjustments that recognize the different services needed to support the special needs of students and broad needs education providers.Michigan Request For Proposals (RFP)While the Michigan RFP called for what the State of Michigan titled as an Education Adequacy Study, the scope of work in the RFP included several requests for data, such as regional school district revenues and capital revenues and expenditures, which are not related to most school funding adequacy studies. Furthermore, the RFP was prescriptive about the use of state standards in the analysis, which limited the use of the MESR to conduct an adequacy study and further improve funding for Michigan’s students to meet the state’s expectations. The Michigan Education Study Report does not meet the standards of an adequacy study because it did not use any of the four main approaches currently used in studies, which is discussed in the next section.Adequacy Studies and the Uses in Other StatesAdequacy studies have evolved over time to use multiple approaches in determining the base student cost and adjustments for student and district needs, which are needed in state school funding formulas. The four approaches used are:The Successful School Districts (SSD) approach, which infers that the base cost spent by districts found to be meeting standards could be used for all districts. The SSD approach is typically used for setting a base cost but not adjustments.The Professional Judgment (PJ) approach, which gathers leading educators most knowledgeable about the delivery of quality education to identify the human resources and operating expenses needed to meet standards in specific circumstances. The PJ approach is often used to set adjustments for student and specific provider needs. The Evidence-Based (EB) approach, which uses research knowledge of academic research on student performance to identify the resources needed. The EB approach then creates a set of schools that are reviewed by educators to adjust for State specific context in addition to State standards. The Statistical (SA) approach, which uses regression analysis and statistical modeling to examine the relationship between district spending and district performance. According to a comprehensive report conducted by APA (2014) – the same firm that conducted the MESR – over 35 states have had one or more adequacy studies over the last two decades. The PJ approach was used in more of those studies than any of the other approaches. In the past 11 years, from 2003 to 2014, 25 states have had an adequacy study done in their state. In 19 of those states multiple approaches were used; some states have completed multiple studies. A total of 39 studies were completed in those 25 states. Twelve states used the EB approached as a primary study approach while 14 states used the PJ approach as a primary study approach. See Appendix A for a listing of the states that conducted these recent studies. The chart below provides a snapshot of the use of approaches in the 39 studies.Table 1: Types of Adequacy Studies conducted in 25 states from 2003 to 2014Type of Adequacy study# of studiesSuccessful School Districts (SSD)17Professional Judgment (PJ)29Evidence-Based (EB)19Statistical (SA)-Multiple approaches23When states use multiple approaches within one study, it is the contractor’s responsibility to integrate the results in order to recommend a single base cost. Some studies have recommended a starting point by using the results of the lower-base cost approach and phasing-in increases to reach the higher-base cost found by a different approach. When separate studies have been conducted, states typically have used the lower base cost estimate. Several states have found that separate studies yield similar results. Understanding a key component of Adequacy: StandardsThe general goal of public education is to insure that students are prepared for college, career, and life. In Michigan, the State Superintendent and the State Board of Education set a visionary goal – to be in the top 10 states in 10 years. This vision means that educators work to insure that students meet the state and local requirements for a high school diploma – at a minimum. To become the best, educators will aim beyond high school to prepare for post-secondary opportunities such as college, military, or trade school. Indeed, as educators prepare students, states’ governance systems and legislatures work to insure that standards are set and accountability systems are running to measure those standards. In Michigan, this meant a shift in standards to 21st century standards, rooted in the shift to the Common Core. In addition, the state made a shift in the accountability system using to M-STEP for general education students, MI-Access for students with Individual Education Plans (IEP), and ACCESS-ELL for English Language Learners. Further, in this era of education, student growth is more important than static proficiency, which means more and different data will be needed to conduct future adequacy studies.Adjustments for Student and District NeedsAs discussed above, adequacy studies focus on how schools and districts identify the resources that are needed to meet the state’s standards. The next sections outline more details on how the adequacy studies result in more data analyses to inform the creation of state-funding formulas for public education.Student NeedsAdequacy studies have been used to identify resources needed to establish school funding formula adjustments to the base student costs that reflect student and school district needs. Theoretically, if all education providers had an equal distribution of students with special needs, the resources needed would be built into the base student cost. This section describes how different states handle teaching students that need additional services: (1) learning disabilities of varying degrees, (2) students with challenges in their life outside of school that might include frequent moves or unemployed parents, and (3) students whose first language is one other than English. More often than not, these students study in schools where there are high concentrations of need, which means teachers need more tools than in schools where the students do not have high needs. Because students with high needs are not equally dispersed, weights or special adjustments need to be made. The most frequent weight adjustments found across the country are the additional resources needed to provide education for special education students, economically disadvantaged students, and English Language Learners (ELL). Special education weights identified by State adequacy studies are often above 1.0 as a single weight but more often divided in levels of severity of need. Those range from a 0.5 to 0.99 weight for mild needs, 1.0 to 1.93 for moderate needs and above 3.0 to 8.0 for severe needs. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) reported in 2010 that about half of the states currently use weights for special education funding. Most of the other states use a census-based approach versus a headcount approach, which means the state provides a percentage reimbursement or a block grant. The weights identified by state adequacy studies to serve economically disadvantaged students vary from 0.24 to 0.75 mainly due to school district size. In 2005 an adequacy study in Connecticut found a need for a concentration factor that accounted for the increased need in primarily urban areas that had a significantly higher percentage of at-risk students. The Education Commission of the States (ECS) found that 24 states provide aid for at-risk students through their primary funding formula; 21 provide additional funding for at-risk through categorical funding. They also noted that Colorado and Nebraska have concentration factors in their formulas. These concentration factors provide higher weights for school districts with the highest percentage of at-risk students. In addition to the variance in how funding is provided, states vary in how they identify at-risk students with most states (27) using eligibility in the National Free and Reduced School Lunch Program (FREL) as the primary source of data. Other states use sources such as unsatisfactory academic performance, Title 1 eligibility, and census-based data on a number of poverty indicators. Adequacy studies have found a need for ELL weights ranging from 0.39 to 1.21, which also vary due to school districts size. Larger districts typically benefit from the economies of scale that allow for a lower rate. In practice, ECS found that 34 states include ELL funding in the state’s primary funding formula, nine states use categorical funding for ELL and three states reimburse school districts. As with at-risk funding, there is considerable difference in the weighting used by states: 5 states use a weight of less than 0.15, 11 states have 0.15 to 0.25, 10 states have weights above 0.25. The highest weight for ELL students is in Maryland, which has a weight of 0.99. These variations could be attributed to the density of ELL students, the types of services needed, and/or availability of instructors available for the particular language.In conclusion, given this variance between states, there is a lack of correlation between important student need factors and student success rates (measured by student test scores or graduation rates). Education providers should not be held accountable for demographic differences that they do not control, but adequacy studies help states to understand how to support those student needs.District NeedsIn addition to an adequate base cost and adjustments for student needs, State school funding systems need to address variable factors that effect education providers. Examples of these variable factors are Cost of Living differences, economies of scale, and variations in levels of education service.Most education providers have little control over the cost of living in their region. Some states have found that the differences in regional costs vary sufficiently to adjust the base cost in their school funding formula to account for the difference. All of the states that have these adjustments develop an index unique to their state. The ten states that specifically have some type of geographic cost index in their school funding formula use a cost of living or cost of education approach. The cost of living approach uses competitive wage indices. The cost of education approach uses school district expenditure data. Typically, these geographic cost indexes are only added to formulas when a comprehensive school funding formula is created. All of these index factors increase funding for high cost regions but do not decrease funding for low cost regions. Most states recognize the difference in costs for school districts based on school district size. Additional funding is provided for small school districts based on the lack of efficiency because of their size; larger districts reach economies of scale as a result of how many students they serve. Some states limit the increased funding to “necessarily small” districts. Some states adjust school funding formulas because of variation in the cost of providing education to different levels of education. These adjustments provided increased weights for early grades and for high schools because high school students receive more funding because of the variety of classes offered, which results in smaller class sizes. This is most notable when states have education providers that only serve elementary or high school students. Tables 2 and 3, taken from a report written for the Association of Metropolitan School Districts, illustrate a sample of states and the cost indexes used.MESR Strengths and WeaknessesAs outlined in this report, an adequacy study gives states information to support students so that they can reach standards set by the state. APA broadened the definition of an adequacy study, which the study team describes in the introduction to MESR in which three types of education finance studies are identified. APA describes the differences between structural reviews, equity studies, and costing out studies and note that the Michigan RFP requested a mix of data analyses (State of Michigan, 2014). The strength of the MESR was in the data analyses that provide a framework for understanding the school finance formula needs of the State of Michigan. The first example of this is the regression analysis that analyzed the relationship between district demographics, district spending and overall student performance on standardized tests provides clear evidence for additional weighting for economically disadvantaged, special education, and ELL students. The second analysis is the equity analysis that provides additional support for weighting of high needs students and a warning about a school funding system that is trending toward being less equitable over time. The final strong analysis within the MESR was a result of a weakness in the RFP. The identification of 58 Notably Successful Districts (NSD) allows for a data analysis that is a partial adequacy study base, but could serve as a target base cost that may be used for a starting point in a new school funding formula. It is not a full adequacy study because the standard was not a full representation of Michigan’s standards. The reason it is a strong analysis was the study team’s identification of notable ways to create a standard that was not an absolute “proficiency” standard only. That led to the possible use of an average cost for 54 of the 58 NSD districts to create a base cost using an approach similar to a SSD adequacy study. Building on this notion of understanding NSDs, EIDEX and Plante Moran conducted a recent analysis of the NSDs. This analysis includes demographic, enrollment, financial, special education, and transportation data. Although these data are useful in understanding the differences NSDs with other Michigan school districts it adds to the concerns of using a pseudo-SSD adequacy approach. The NSDs have higher fund balances, more revenue, higher expenditures, and higher special education populations than the average Michigan school district. Appendix D shows a full listing of the conclusions reached by the NSD analysis. Several weaknesses of the MESR are primarily a result of the RFP. The requirements of the RFP did not provide a bidder the opportunity to select the best way to identify adequacy. As discussed above, the best way to identify an adequate base and adjustments is to use multiple approaches that gather information about how to provide an education that enables students to reach the state’s standards. The requirements of the RFP, although similar to the SSD approach, excluded that approach because the RFP required the sole use of “exemplary districts.” This analysis assumes an even playing field on which all school districts can succeed based on the average base spending of “exemplary districts.” As APA noted, there are a wide variety of difference district-by-district, which does not allow for this assumption to hold. In addition, the exemplary districts have a demographic homogeneity that many studies have shown to result in lower funding needs. Data that gives a look at this difference is in Table 2.4 of MESR. Another weakness of the RFP was the prescriptive approach to setting a regional cost difference. The study approach required data on non-instructional expenditures, such as capital construction costs, and the selection of 14 regions of Michigan without determining the appropriateness in relation to a goal of creating a geographic cost index. As noted above, ten states use a base adjustment for geographic cost differences. Each cost index is uniquely designed for the state, is not limited to non-instructional costs, and does not include capital costs.The RFP did not request and, as a result, MESR did not address differentiating funding based on the level of education provided. As mentioned above some states that have elementary or high school only school districts find a need to make an adjustment. The need for such an adjustment is raised by the increase in virtual schools and Public School Academies (charter schools) that do not serve the full range of grades. Although charter schools are not mentioned in the report, this study can be used to set a base cost and funding levels for the annual operating costs of charter schools. What is missing is the data related to the capital needs of charter schools. Data on capital and debt service of school districts is presented in chapter VIII of the MESR.Furthermore, several weaknesses of the MESR are a result of data sets available to APA. For example, because capital construction data sets were limited APA relied on extant data within the School Bond Program Election results, rather than using specific data elements such as “types of projects, costs of projects, and timing of projects for every district in the state over at least the five-year time span of the study” (APA, 2016, p. 107). A similar conundrum occurred with special education data sets: in the data collection process, APA found that “many districts received support from ISDs for special education. Depending on the relationship with the ISD, expenditures may or may not show up on the district’s books. Additionally, some districts’ financials included expenditures made to other districts” (APA, 2016, p. 148).Critique of Seven Recommendations The MESR study team made seven recommendations, which taken together are a strength of the report because each recommendation’s strength and weakness illustrates how multiple sources of data would help the state identify how each school districts’ needs can be met to insure that all of Michigan’s students meet the state’s standards. Below are comments about each of those recommendations related to the study’s strengths and weaknesses:1. The base cost expenditures for Notably Successful Districts should be used as the per student base cost for Michigan once efficiency screens are applied.As mentioned above, if one assumes the limitations of the RFP in defining the limited successful districts as those with levels of proficiency above the state average, then the use of the Notably Successful Districts to set a base cost is appropriate. Even though the contractor has recommended the use of efficiency screens in other state reports, there is a question about the use of efficiency screens: Should unique expenditures by certain successful school districts be considered outliers or should the analysis to create a base cost include all successful districts? If a full adequacy study is to be done, there should be a review of the need for the use of efficiency screens for the SSD approach because averages tell part of the story, whereas if school districts on the high and low margins are included, the state might learn other stories that are important to consider. 2. The study team recommends that funding from state and local sources be available for at-risk and ELL students equivalent to weights of 0.30 for at-risk and 0.40 for ELL students.This is an important recommendation based on the data from the equity analysis part of MESR. The need to spend more in school districts with high student needs to achieve more equity is clear in MESR. A weakness of this recommendation is the level of suggested weights for ELL and at-risk students because of the range of weights. MESR correctly identified in the range of national costing-out studies, but the study team admits that their suggestion would be at the low end of what is recommended. It is important to note that the suggested weights for Michigan are lower than weights currently used in several other state formulas. This is especially true of the ELL weight. A full adequacy study – that allows for data collection from multiple sources – is needed to determine an appropriate weight. The weights for special education, ELL and at-risk students would be related to an appropriate base and may result in weights that would help reduce the equity gap.3. The study team recommends creating a system that better tracks special education expenditures from all sources.In many states school districts have collaborated with other education providers to support their service to special education students. Other states have tracked expenditures for special education services by private providers and ISDs in ways that connect back to school districts. Regardless of the method used, a better tracking system will help the state understand the needs of its most vulnerable students. 4. The study team does not recommend setting regional benchmarks for non-instructional expenditures at this time. The Notably Successful District figures should be used at this time as part of the base cost figures.This recommendation is consistent with the data analysis that was completed by the study team, because a regional cost analysis would not show a wide variation in costs. As stated above, the NSD analysis, while it has its faults, would give Michigan a good base number with which to build a better system.5. The study team does not recommend setting regional benchmarks for capital or debt service expenditures.This recommendation is consistent with the findings of the study team, and as noted in this report, the selection of 14 regions of Michigan without determining the appropriateness in relation to a goal of creating a regional cost index will result in a flawed system. 6. Michigan should begin to collect targeted data if it wishes to set regional cost differences in the future.The study team is correct in its recommendation but wrong about the kinds of data needed to create a regional cost index. The preferred approach is one that recognizes the primary data needed for a regional cost adjustment is the personnel part of the operating budget. Several states use comparable wage indices as the base for their regional cost index. 7. Michigan should work to create a more equitable state funding system.The three areas the study team recommends are strengths of MESR: (1) Narrowing the range of per pupil revenues and expenditures, (2) increasing the weights for at risk and ELL students, and (3) monitoring the equity of the system. These recommendations are well supported. That said, creating a more equitable system will require an analysis that includes special education needs, which recommendation 3 will help to solve.Recommendations for Moving ForwardAs a result of the work done for MESR, recommendations for future work on Michigan school funding should be divided into short-term and the long-term actions. Short-term actions would use the base cost plus adjustments identified in MESR to recommend changes in the Michigan school finance system. Numerous issues may be addressed, but at the core, a simulation of the cost and district impact would be needed. This work can begin in the fall of 2016 and provide a path for proposals to the 2017 session of the Michigan Legislature. Efforts also should begin in the fall of 2016 on the long-term actions needed for improving Michigan’s school funding formula. This long-term focus will include taking steps needed for an adequacy study that will bolster that base cost number from MESR and provide more appropriate student need weights for a proposal for the 2018 session of the Michigan Legislature. Recommendations:Simulate recommendations from MESR using data for all Michigan education providersImplement MESR recommendations on data collectionDevelop better tracking of Special Education expendituresImprove data on capital expenditures including charter school capital expendituresDetermine an approach to the identification of different cost pressures and collect data for regional cost indexPrepare a new RFP for a full adequacy study with the understanding that such studies have a minimum cost of $400,000 to $600,000. A stand-alone SSD approach that would not provide student weights would be estimated to cost at least $100,000.Prepare a statement of work for a researcher to conduct the full adequacy study. See Appendix B for an example.Prepare a list of requirements for a contractor to meet in order to complete the full adequacy study. See Appendix C for an example.The State of Michigan needs to use MESR data to address funding for capital needs. Although according to a report by the National Clearinghouse for Education Facilities (NCEF) State Capital funding formulas vary, they often work to assure more equitable access to funding by supporting low wealth school districts. Offering State support to low wealth, high tax school districts in other States has resulted in a higher level of bond election success. Eleven States provide support to education providers with a facilities support staff. Thirteen States paid for over 50 percent of school districts capital outlay. At least seventeen states provide some capital facilities support for charter schools. That support raises the question of using State funds for For-Profit organizations and the facility ownership that results.ConclusionThe work identified by MESR did put Michigan on track for much needed changes to meet the state constitutional requirements, however, the changes were not put on a fast track due to the limitations of the original RFP. APA’s study, working within those constraints shed light on short-term and long-term actions needed to improve school finance funding. This review and analysis of MESR provides the next steps needed for Michigan’s schools to be one of the top 10 states for education in the United States.ReferencesHYPERLINK "file://C:\\Users\\eshekell_BF\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\Temporary Internet Files\\Content.Outlook\\IELXZKSC\\Ahearn, E. (2010). Financing Special Education: State Funding Formulas. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved from: http:\\\\DesktopModules\\DNNspot-Store\\ProductFiles\\82_dce66976-08dd-4cdd-abbd-1397e973c81a.pdf" HYPERLINK "Ahearn,%20E.%20(2010).%20Financing%20Special%20Education:%20State%20Funding%20Formulas.%20National%20Association%20of%20State%20Directors%20of%20Special%20Education.%20Retrieved%20from:%20%20" Ahearn, E. (2010). Financing Special Education: State Funding Formulas. National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Retrieved from: , A., Picus, L., Odden, A. & Fermanich, M. (2014). A Comprehensive Review of State Adequacy Studies Since 2003. Denver, CO: Augenblick, Palaich & Associates. Retrieved from: Commission of the States. (2014). Funding per student: 50-state comparison. Retrieved from: Commission of the States. (2016). English Language Learners: 50-state comparison. Retrieved from: , M., Cheng, S., Allen, M., Bar, M., and Ulsoy, J. (2010). State Capital Spending On Pk 12 School Facilities. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Retrieved from: , J. (2007). Implementation and Use of Geographic Cost Indices in State School Funding Formulas. St. Paul, MN: Association of Metropolitan School Districts. Retrieved from: McClure, P. (2005). Where Standards Come From. Theory Into Practice, 44(1), 4-10.Michigan Department of Education. (2016). Retrieved from: , E, and Griffith, M. (2016). The Importance of At-Risk Funding. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from:? of Maryland. (2014). Request For Proposals (RFP) Solicitation No. R00r4402342 Study Of Adequacy Of Funding For Education In The State Of MarylandState of Michigan. (2014) Request for Proposal No. 007115B0005699 Education Financial StudyAppendix A: Summary of State Adequacy StudiesThe tables below are snapshots from one of APA’s reports to Maryland. For the complete report on past studies, please see B: Sample Adequacy Study RFPStatement of Work - Requirements Adequacy StudyThe Contractor shall conduct an adequacy cost study for Michigan public schools using at least two adequacy study approaches from the following list:The Successful School Districts (SSD) approach, which infers that the base cost spent by districts found to be meeting standards could be used for all districts. The SSD approach is typically used for setting a base cost but not adjustments.The Professional Judgment (PJ) approach, which gathers leading educators most knowledgeable about the delivery of quality education to identify the human resources and operating expenses needed to meet standards in specific circumstances. The PJ approach is often used to set adjustments for student and specific provider needs. The Evidence-Based (EB) approach, which uses research knowledge of academic research on student performance to identify the resources needed. The EB approach then creates a set of schools that are reviewed by educators to adjust for State specific context in addition to State standards. The Statistical (SA) approach, which uses regression analysis and statistical modeling to examine the relationship between district spending and district performance. The Contractor shall propose the rationale for the methods that it recommends the State use to estimate the cost of adequate education funding. The Contractor shall base the adequacy cost study on the amount of funding required for Michigan local education agencies (LEAs) and charter schools to successfully implement the Michigan Merit Curriculum adopted by the Michigan State Board of Education: Academic standards in Arts, College and career Readiness Skills, English Language Arts, Health & Physical Education, Mathematics, Nutrition, Science, Social Studies, Technology, and World Languages as set by the State Board of Education on the State assessments;The Contractor shall identify a base funding level (i.e. per student amount) for students without special needs using multiple methods. The Contractor shall identify per pupil weights for students with special needs (i.e. compensatory education, limited English proficiency, and special education) to be applied to the base funding level using multiple methods. The Contractor shall note unique factors that effect the adequacy targets that result from the base funding and per pupil weights identified, and whether additional adjustments are necessary to provide adequate funding for LEAs, such as what might be needed in areas with high concentrations of poverty or other areas requiring adjustments is student weights.The Contractor shall identify gaps in growth and achievement among student groups disaggregated by income and make recommendations on specific programs to address the gaps in growth or achievement. The Contractor’s final report and recommendations related to the adequacy cost study shall include recommendations on how the State’s existing education aid formulas could be modified to incorporate the findings and recommendations of the study and any new or existing programs that may need a separate funding formula. Appendix C: Sample QualificationsQualifications Of ContractorOfferor Minimum Qualifications The Offeror must provide proof that at least three studies have been conducted by its proposed team. As proof, three references must be listed who will verify that the Key Personnel conducted or managed the study. As part of the proposal, the Offeror will provide:?a copy of the adequacy cost studies referenced.?letter or letters from each entity for whom the studies referenced was conducted attesting to the role of key personnel.In addition, the Offeror must have: education finance experience that includes evidence of participation of at least one key personnel (i.e. project manager, principal investigator, lead researcher) or a combination of key personnel conducting or managing at least three adequacy cost studies. ?finance experience that includes evidence of participation of at least one key personnel (i.e. project manager, principal investigator, lead researcher) or a combination of key personnel in adequacy cost studies using more than one methodology. Appendix D: Conclusions from Notably Successful Districts analysis done by Plante Moran ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download