兰德-Options-for-Educating-Students-Attending-Department-of-Defense-Schools-in-the-United-States_196页_1mb

Summary of the Report: Options for Educating Students at U.S. Department of Defense Schools

Core Content

This report, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), evaluates the feasibility of various options for educating military-connected children at 15 Department of Defense (DoD) installations in the contiguous United States (CONUS). The six options analyzed are:

1. Status Quo: Continue to operate Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools (DDESS) and special arrangement schools.
2. Transfer to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs): Transfer students and facilities to LEAs.
3. Contract with LEAs: Contract with LEAs to operate on-base schools.
4. Coterminous Districts: Establish a new LEA under state law covering the full installation area.
5. Individual Charter Schools: Establish individual charter schools under state law.
6. Contract with Education Management Organizations (EMOs): Contract with EMOs or Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) to manage schools.

The report provides a detailed evaluation of each option in terms of feasibility, school quality, costs, and implementation considerations, aiming to inform decision-makers and stakeholders.

Main Points and Findings

Feasibility of Options

• Option 1: Status Quo

  • Feasible at all 15 installations.
  • No significant barriers to implementation.

• Option 2: Transfer to LEAs

  • Feasible at most installations.
  • Conditionally feasible at Hanscom AFB and Dover AFB due to state laws and lack of precedents.
  • Feasible at installations in Kentucky, despite no prior precedent for on-base education.
  • Requires at least 12 months of planning time.

• Option 3: Contract with LEAs

  • Feasible at all installations.
  • Similar to the current special arrangements, which have been in place for over 50 years at Hanscom and Dover AFBs.
  • Requires significant transition planning and resources.

• Option 4: Coterminous Districts

  • Conditionally feasible at all but three installations: Fort Benning, Fort Stewart, and Fort Campbell.
  • Georgia constitution prohibits new districts at Fort Benning and Fort Stewart.
  • Tennessee and Kentucky have legal barriers to establishing a single district at Fort Campbell.
  • Requires state cooperation and possibly legislation.

• Option 5: Individual Charter Schools

  • Feasible only in some states.
  • Not feasible at Maxwell AFB, Fort Rucker, Fort Knox, Fort Campbell, MCB Quantico, and NSWC Dahlgren due to state laws.
  • Conditionally feasible at other installations.
  • Requires state or LEA authorization, and some states limit the number of charter schools.

• Option 6: Contract with EMOs/CMOs

  • Conditionally feasible at all installations.
  • Four existing charter schools on military installations are managed by EMOs or CMOs.
  • Potential legal and logistical challenges in other states.
  • May be more suitable for larger installations due to the need for a capable network.

School Quality Evaluation

• The study compared the quality of DDESS and LEA schools using available data on academic performance, teacher qualifications, and student services.
• Academic performance metrics (e.g., TerraNova scores) were used to assess school quality.
• DDESS installations generally scored above the national median on TerraNova, but performance varied by installation.
• LEAs showed mixed performance relative to state and national medians.
• The report notes that direct comparison of quality is limited due to differences in assessment systems and performance metrics.

Cost and Finance Considerations

• Current Operating Costs: DDESS and special arrangement schools have significant annual operating costs, with DoDEA’s FY2013 budget allocated to these schools.
• Facility Costs: Capital and sustainment costs are also a key factor in the decision-making process.
• Impact Aid Programs: These programs provide financial support to LEAs educating military-connected students. Transferring responsibility to LEAs could affect the amount of Impact Aid received.
• Transition Costs: All options involve some transition costs, with the transfer and coterminous district options requiring more extensive planning and financial adjustments.
• Funding Implications: The financial impact of each option is analyzed, including changes in Basic Support Payments, Program for Children with Disabilities payments, and DoD supplemental payments.

Implementation Planning

• Each option has different implementation timelines and requirements.
• The status quo and contracting with LEAs are the most straightforward options to implement.
• Transferring responsibility to LEAs or establishing coterminous districts requires longer planning periods and state-level cooperation.
• Charter schools and EMO/CMO contracts may face legal and logistical challenges, especially in states with restrictive policies.

Key Information

• There are 25,911 students currently enrolled in DDESS and special arrangement schools at 15 CONUS installations.
• Military-connected children at these installations account for about 4% of all school-age children in CONUS.
• The study draws on four previous analyses and interviews with nearly 400 stakeholders, including DDESS and LEA personnel, to assess the options.
• The report emphasizes the importance of state cooperation, legal frameworks, and financial considerations in determining the feasibility of each option.

Conclusion

The report concludes that preserving the status quo or contracting with LEAs are the most viable options for most installations. Other options, such as transferring responsibility to LEAs or establishing coterminous districts, may be conditionally feasible depending on state laws and local conditions. Charter schools and EMO/CMO contracts face more significant legal and implementation barriers, especially in certain states. The findings are intended to guide decision-makers in evaluating the best educational options for military-connected children while considering quality, cost, and long-term implications.