Posts Tagged "IM Funds"

Infographic: What are Districts Buying?

As Texas districts prepare for the 2015-2016 school year, we analyzed the IMA purchasing data* to identify trends that could offer valuable insights for districts and publishers alike.

Take a look a this infographic (click here to download the PDF version or here for a high-resolution PNG file) to see:

  • State-adopted vs. non-state adopted products purchased (by amount spent and by number of products purchased)
  • Price Variance for High School Math Products (cost/student)
  • Price Variance of Social Studies Products (cost/student)
  • Top High School Math Publishers (by dollars spent)
  • Top Social Studies Publishers (by dollars spent)
  • Top Publishers for all IM Purchased  (by dollars spent)

Conclusion: Districts are buying more non-adopted products than ever before, but spending more on state-adopted products. Product prices vary significantly within a grade and subject, even for products with similar alignment percentages. Smaller publishers are gaining market share in each of the subjects adopted, as more online products are being purchased. With reviews for well over 850 instructional materials from more than 85 publishers, Learning List makes comparison shopping easier to save districts significant time and money and help educators select the products that will best meet their students’ needs.

[Source: Learning List]

List of Statistics

What Products Are Districts Buying? (By Quantity)
57% = Non-state-adopted
43% = state-adopted
How Much $ Districts Spent
75% = state- adopted
25% = non-state adopted
Price Variance in High School Math Products
Geometry: $43 – $140/student (max. is over 3X price) – 8yr. Print and Online
Algebra: $59 – $103/student (max. is 74% higher) – 8yr. Print and Online
Price Variance in Social Studies Products
World History: $52 – $108/student (> 2X price) – 8Yr. Print and Online
Top Math IMs $ Purchased By Publisher
Big Ideas Learning
College Board
Pearson
McGraw-Hill
HMH
Cengage Learning
Math Learning Center
AQR
BFW
Mentoring Minds
(Top 5 are 85% of all purchases.)
Top Social Studies IM$ Purchased By Publisher
Pearson
McGraw Hill
HMH
Studies Weekly
Cengage
Teacher Created Materials
Firelight Books
Ramsey Solutions
UT Permian Basin
Scholastic
(Top 5 are 99% of all purchases.)
Top IM Purchases for ALL IMs by Publisher
Pearson
McGraw Hill
HMH
Big Ideas Learning
College Board
Zaner-Bloser
Cengage Learning
Learning.com
Quaver Music
Studies Weekly
(Top 5 are 72% of all purchases.)

* Data Source: TEA Instructional Materials Allotment Expenditures (May 2015)

© 2015 Learning List

Read More

Districts Get New Title I Flexibility: Learning List Can Help

[Source: TEA]

[Source: TEA]

Recently, Texas Commissioner of Education, Michael Williams advised districts:

Texas school districts are no longer required to set aside 20 percent of their Title I federal dollars to provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES) for students at low-performing campuses. A district is now free to use those funds on academic intervention programs it deems most effective for its students.

Learning List’s detailed alignment reports help districts easily identify supplemental products that will meet their students’ academic needs.

Our detailed alignment reports verify the publisher’s correlation, identifying multiple citations (e.g., pages, lessons, videos, etc…) that are aligned to each student expectation and the citations in the publisher’s correlation that Learning List found not to be aligned. Moreover, for each non-aligned citation, Learning List’s alignment reports include a comment explaining the part of the student expectation (i.e., the content, context, or cognitive demand) the citation did not address.

[Source: HI. EDU]

[Source: HI. EDU]

If a school/district’s test scores across a class/grade level/subject show a pattern of low performance, the district’s IM – or the teacher’s use of the IM — may be the cause. Here’s how:

STEP 1: Are the district’s materials aligned to that (those) standard(s)?

Learning List’s alignment reports show whether the district’s IM is aligned to each student expectation. If the materials are not aligned to the standards the students missed on the test and the teachers did not know the material was not aligned, students likely were not taught the knowledge and skills required by that (those) standard(s).

STEP 2: Even if the materials are aligned to that/those standard(s), are there some citations in the publisher’s correlation that are not aligned to the standard(s)?

In many cases, Learning List’s alignment report reveals that some of the citations listed in the publishers’ correlation are aligned to a student expectation and others are not. If teachers were assigning the citations that are not aligned to the standard(s) the students missed on the test, students likely were not taught the knowledge and skills required by that (those) standard(s).

Moreover, if the district’s IM are not aligned to 100% of the TEKS standards in a grade/subject, Learning List’s “Fill-in-the-Gap” tool identifies other materials, both comprehensive and supplemental (including open education resources) that address the remaining standards.

As State Board of Education member Pat Hardy commented, “Learning List helps districts use their instructional materials instructionally.” Though Texas school districts must no longer set aside 20% of their Title I funding for SES, districts still have a legal and moral obligation to help all students learn what the standards require. Learning List helps districts choose and then also use their instructional materials effectively to help teachers teach and students learn what the State requires them to know and be able to do. Please click here to request a webinar or more information.

[All materials related to the state’s waiver request – including the latest letter from USDE – are available for viewing on the TEA website .]

Read More

Look Into a Crystal Ball: How to Project Your District’s Instructional Materials Allotment Allocation

[Source: Opinion Lab]

[Source: Opinion Lab]

Today, the Texas State Board of Education adopted 89 social studies, 55 high school math and 172 fine arts materials. Learning List has reviewed all of the state-adopted social studies and high school math products that were adopted, as well as several materials in those subjects that were not submitted for state adoption.

The State Board took another less notorious vote today but one that significantly impacts the amount of state funding school districts and charter schools will receive to pay for instructional materials and technology over the next two school years. The Board set the percentage distribution rate from the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to the Available School Fund (ASF) at 3.5 percent for the 2015-2016 fiscal biennium. As a result of that action, approximately $1 billion a year will transferred from the PSF to the ASF and half of that (~$500M) will be set aside in the ASF for the state instructional materials fund (IMF).

[© 2014 Learning List]

[© 2014 Learning List]

Are you wondering how much IMA your district or charter school will receive to purchase new social studies and high school math materials? Learning List’s whitepaper will help you predict approximately how much IMA funding you can reasonably expect to receive in September of each year of the 2015- 16 biennium. However, as you will read, two important steps have yet to be taken before districts can know with certainty the amount of IMA funding they will have available for each year of the next biennium.

NOTE: Based upon our analysis with a 2013-14 TEA enrollment of 5.15 million students, districts can expect approximately $98/student per year in IMA funds for each of the next two years. You can read or download a copy of How to Project Your District’s Instructional Materials Allotment Allocation by clicking here.

Read More

Subscribe!

Click here to subscribe for weekly updates.

Connect with us

Categories

Blog Calendar

May 2021
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31