I. Executive Summary 1

II. Execution of Study Design 2

III. Results of the Exercises 12

IV. Conclusion 18

Appendix A: Definition of "The Basket" 20

Appendix B: Recruitment Correspondence 21

Appendix C: Individual Profiles of the Panel of School

Appendix D: Task Instructions for Red, White and Blue

Appendix E: Task Instructions for Green Team with Exhibits J-K 69

Appendix F: Reports of the Red, White and Blue Teams 85

Appendix G: Green Team Report 148

Appendix H: Response Sheets to Tasks 2/4, Validation of

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the Education Funding Adequacy Study is to test the hypothesis that the funding system and level of school support recently approved by the Wyoming Legislature and signed by the Governor provides equal access to a "proper" education for every child in the State. A proper education is understood to be one that successfully delivers an essential "basket" of educational services as defined by existing Wyoming statute. The Study followed a straightforward, three step process for investigating this issue.

First, a panel of 18 well-qualified, objective education experts was assembled. In order to maximize the reliability of the panel's judgments while avoiding a conflict of interest, members of the expert panel were selected from a pool of candidates drawn from nine states similar to the state of Wyoming, but not including Wyoming itself.

Second, a series of budget and curriculum design exercises were devised whose assumptions, unbeknownst to the panel members, corresponded to the real world conditions and options within which Wyoming's newly adopted cost-based block grant model must operate. Specifically, for the Large School Exercise the panel designed programs consistent with three levels of funding allocation. The three levels of resources were those described in MAP Example 3 (May 1997 report)¹, those provided in the 1997 state budget (HEA#2) ² and those provided in the 1998 state budget (SEA#2)³

  Elementary        $6,165            16
  Middle            $6,403            20
  High              $6,781            17

 
 Elementary         $5,941            16
 Middle             $5,771            23
 High               $6,050            22

 Elementary         $5,982            16
 Middle             $6,092            21
 High               $6,572            19

For the Small Schools Exercise, the panel designed education programs guided by a single set of funding assumptions – those adopted in current law – but for six different small schools configurations.

Third, the panel of experts were divided into independent teams who worked through the exercises. For the Large School Exercise, three teams of four school administrators each were asked to design an educational program that would deliver the basket in elementary, middle and high school settings at the three stipulated budget levels. The three teams worked through the three budget-level program design tasks independently of one another and in differing orders. For the Small Schools Exercise, a fourth team of six school administrators created hypothetical curricula and staffing for the six small school configurations. As a check on program design, each of the four teams was required to compose narratives describing the experience of three prototypical students – a mid-range achiever; a disadvantaged student who struggles with academics; and a motivated, college-bound student -- moving through their hypothetical programs from kindergarten through graduation. At the conclusion of each exercise, the various teams provided their best professional judgment concerning the adequacy of the hypothetical programs to deliver the "basket."

The results of the exercises were unequivocal. Under all scenarios and sets of assumptions, the independent teams of education experts unanimously agreed that adequate levels of resources had been provided to deliver the basket of education opportunities to every student.

The remainder of this report describes each step in the execution of the study design, as well as the results of the study, in greater detail.

II. EXECUTION OF STUDY DESIGN

To develop a pool of highly qualified and objective school administrators to participate in the Education Funding Adequacy Study, MAP sought to identify

MAP approached national and statewide educational leadership organizations and requested the nomination of candidates meeting the criteria stated above. (See sample letter, Appendix B, "Recruitment Correspondence.") A list of national organizations contacted includes: the American Association of School Administrators; the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development; the National Association of Elementary School Administrators; and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. In addition, MAP sought nominations from the statewide educational leadership organizations and agencies of the nine Western and Midwestern states in closest proximity to Wyoming. These include: the Colorado Association of School Executives; the Colorado State Department of Education; the Idaho Association of School Administrators; the Idaho State Department of Education; the Kansas Association of School Administrators; the Kansas State Department of Education; the Montana Association of School Administrators; the Montana State Department of Education; the Nebraska Council of School Administrators; the Nebraska State Department of Education; the Nevada Association of School Administrators; the Nevada State Department of Education; the North Dakota Council of Educational Leaders; the North Dakota State Department of Education; School Administrators of Montana; School Administrators of South Dakota; the South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs; the Utah School Superintendent Association; and the Utah State Department of Education.

Nominations of education experts from Wyoming were not solicited. The majority of school districts in the State are party to the on-going litigation Campbell County V. State of Wyoming, et. Al; to have invited their participation would have created a conflict of interest for educators whose school districts stood to gain or lose from the results of that same Study.

Contacts with education organizations produced a total pool of 80 nominees. These nominees were approached to determine their interest and availability to participate in an otherwise unspecified "research project" having to do with "program development." (See sample letter, Appendix B, "Recruitment Correspondence.") 38 candidates indicated an interest in participating in the study. Working with scheduling information, and with a view to putting together a series of independent teams balanced according to level of school responsibility (elementary, middle school or high school principal or district superintendent); size of school and school district; and state of origin, MAP ultimately arranged for 18 school administrators to take part in the study.

Professional profiles of the 18 members of the expert panel, together with their team affiliation in the study, are presented in Appendix C, "Individual Profiles of Panel of School Administration Experts." As the profiles make clear, the blue-ribbon panel assembled by MAP can speak with authority on matters of curriculum development, school budget priorities and program design. The panel members have each been recognized as educational leaders by their peers at the state and national levels, either through direct award or through the positions of organizational responsibility entrusted to them. The majority have doctorates in education, or are working toward them. Cumulatively, the panel encompasses over 400 years of experience in K-12 education, averaging over 22 years in the schools per panel member. The panel's experience in education has been predominantly in those specific professional roles -- as school Principals or school district Superintendents – that involve on a daily basis the kinds of hands-on, programmatic decisions called for in the MAP Education Funding Adequacy Study. The panel was selected with an eye to identifying distinguished educators with a

In sum, the panel of school administration experts was eminently well-qualified to prospectively arrive at an informed judgment concerning the adequacy of the new Wyoming school funding system's ability to deliver the required basket of education goods.

In developing the Cost-Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance in 1996 and 1997, MAP consulted with educators in the State to identify the key components underlying the delivery of the basket. Estimates of the cost of each of these components were then derived in a step-by-step fashion, leading after adjustments to an overall estimate of the range of resources that the State might want to provide individual local districts.

Just the opposite approach has been followed in the Education Funding Adequacy Study. In this case, the overall budget level range for a given school district and the expected education outcomes were the known variables. The object of the exercise was to ask a group of qualified educational experts: "Granted a fixed level of resources but with the freedom to use those resources as you see fit, can you design and staff a program that you believe would successfully deliver the basket to every student?"

To provide a structure that would allow educational experts to answer this question, MAP developed two sets of exercises for members of its panel to work through. The Large School exercise addressed the adequacy of school funding in the regular school setting. The second (or "small school") exercise specifically focused on the adequacy of school funding in the small school setting. The remainder of this section describes these two complimentary exercises.

The Large School Exercise consisted of four tasks. Tasks #1 through #3 required Teams of participants to attempt to design K-12 school programs that delivered the educational basket -- granted three different levels of available resources. Although the panel of experts were not aware of it at the time they were engaged in the Tasks, the three budget levels corresponded to real world scenarios from Wyoming's recent experience. Specifically, in order of ascending magnitude, the budgets in the three Tasks corresponded to: (1) "HEA #2" -- the amount of resources made available to school districts by the Legislature in 1997 in HEA #2 as signed by the Governor; (2) "Current Law" -- the amount of resources made available by the Legislature in 1998 in SEA #2 as signed by the Governor; and, (3) "Example Three" -- the amount of resources contemplated in Example Three of MAP's previous study, "A Proposed Cost-Based Block Grant Model for Wyoming School Finance," May 27, 1997.

The programs the Teams devised within the varying budgets were required to be as specific as possible, including a description of curriculum and class schedules as well as an analysis of the skills and knowledge that would be introduced or reinforced at each grade level or course. As a check on the adequacy of program design, the Large School Exercise required each Team to compose narratives describing the educational experience of three prototypical students moving through the program from kindergarten through graduation. In the instructions, Student X is a mid-range achiever. Student Y is disadvantaged and struggles with academics. Student Z is motivated and college bound. As a final phase for each of the first three Tasks, the Teams were required to reach consensus and state on a scale of 1 to 5 the degree of confidence they had in their educational program's ability to deliver the basket to the district's students.

Task #4 of the Large School Exercise recorded the opinions of the individual participants in each Team concerning the validity of the research process as they experienced it.

Participants in the Large School Exercise were provided instructions for Task #1 by mail several days prior to the working conference. Many worked on the Task before the conference began and brought relevant information from their own schools or school districts to help with the entire exercise. Instructions for Task #2 were distributed after the completion of Task #1, and so forth for Tasks #3 and #4. The instructions contained all the background information participants needed to complete the various Tasks of the Large School Exercise. (See Appendix D, "Task Instructions for Red, White and Blue Teams with Exhibits A-I") For example, in Exhibit 1 of the instructions the basket of outcomes and subject matter courses to be delivered was defined. Subsequent series of Exhibits defined the varying levels of resources available to deliver the basket for a particular Task -- #1, #2 or #3. The Exhibits did so by showing baseline budgets for a prototypical Elementary, Middle School and High School broken down by standard cost components. Participants were informed that they were free to allocate resources in any way they wished, including shifting dollars between school levels, if they so desired. Finally, the instructions also spelled out a set of 14 underlying assumptions.

Some of the assumptions (size of the school population, percentage of poor and special education students to be served) described the demographics of the hypothetical schools. Others made clear the great latitude each Team had to make creative programmatic decisions (regarding class size, shifting resources between schools, the organization of the school day) that fundamentally departed from the baseline budget. Still others specified revenue neutral areas or fiscal constraints of the exercise (for example, that the district had no capacity to generate additional state or local revenues or that all resources in the various budgets must be allocated.) None of the supplemental federal funds for disadvantaged or handicapped students or for remedial education, technology or other special programs were included in any of the budgets provided the Teams, even those these funds are available to supplement state funding in virtually all Wyoming school districts.

As previously stated, what the assumptions driving the various Tasks of the Large School Exercise had in common was a direct grounding in the new Wyoming school funding reality. For example, besides the three budget scenarios, the definition of the education basket used throughout the various Tasks corresponded to the definition of a proper education as codified in current Wyoming statute. The Large School Exercise also simulated the autonomy accorded Wyoming educators under a block grant method of funding distribution. Just as Wyoming educators can use the resources provided by the State in whatever manner they see fit, provided their overall program accomplishes the agreed-on statewide goals, the various Teams of expert school administrators had great latitude to design whatever educational program they believed would most effectively deliver the basket.

B. Small Schools Exercise

The Small Schools Exercise consisted of two Tasks. Task #1 asked a Team of experts to attempt to design K-12 programs for six small school configurations that fit within the resource levels available and which the Team believed would deliver the basket. The six school configurations were: three K-8 elementary schools with enrollments of 30, 100 and 200, respectively; and three high schools with enrollments of 48, 100 and 300, respectively. The various configurations corresponded to the prototypical small schools models from the legislative formula Wyoming currently uses to fund small schools.

As with the Large School Exercise, instructions for the Small Schools Exercise clearly defined the educational basket to be delivered, underlying operative assumptions and available budgets. Unlike the Large School Exercise, however, the Team was not provided a prototypical budget for each school configuration already broken down by standard spending components. Rather, it was provided a single dollar allowance for each school configuration together with a set of per unit costs for each spending component. (See Appendix E, "Task Instructions for Green Team with Exhibits J and K".)

Unlike the iterative design of the Large School Exercise, which required Teams to create educational programs for the same schools and districts at three different budget levels, the Small Schools Exercise asked for the Team to design a single program at a specified budget level for each of the six school configuration. (The focus of the Small Schools exercise, in other words, was on thoroughly exploring the sensitivity of the funding formula to school size, not differing budget levels, in terms of its ability to successfully deliver the educational basket to every student.) Unbeknownst to the expert panel, the spending level stipulated in the design exercise corresponded to the spending level provided small schools under current Wyoming law.

As with the Large School Exercise, the Small Schools Exercise required the Team to check the adequacy of their six program designs against the K-12 experience of prototypical students X, Y, and Z. As with the Large School Exercise, the final phase of Task #1 for each of the six program designs was for the Team to reach consensus concerning its level of confidence that the particular program in question would be able to deliver the basket.

Task #2 of the Small Schools Exercise (corresponding to Task #4 of the Large School Exercise) recorded the opinions of the individual participants concerning the validity of the research process as they experienced it.

On the weekend of March 20-22, 1998, the panel of 18 school administration experts and MAP personnel met in Denver to work through the Education Funding Adequacy Study exercises. Each member of the panel of experts had been assigned to one of four teams and given the instructions for their particular Task #1 prior to the initial meeting. Three teams of four members each – the Red, White and Blue Teams – were assigned to carry out the Large School Exercise. One team of six members – the Green Team – took on the Small Schools Exercise.

Members of each team at the working conference were instructed to collaborate among themselves and strive to reach a consensus in the execution of the various Tasks that reflected the best professional judgment of the entire group. Simultaneously, team members were instructed to carry out their team discussions independently of the deliberations of all other teams. These instructions served two purposes.

First, they helped avoid confusion. While the Red, White and Blue Teams were all ultimately required to complete the identical set of four Tasks, the exercise protocol called for them to do so in different sequences. Thus, the Red Team's Task #1 corresponded to the "Example Three" budget, it's Task #2 corresponded to the "Current Law" budget; and its Task #3 corresponded to the "HEA #2" level of funding. The White Team, in contrast, proceeded in a different order, that is, from "HEA #2", through "Current Law", to "Example Three" in its Tasks #1 through #3. The Blue Team started with the "Current Law" scenario in its Task #1, then worked through the "HEA #2" level budget in its Task #2, and the "Example Three" budget in Task #3. (The rationale for the different sequencing of Tasks was as follows. It seemed possible that a Team working from the largest budget to the smallest budget – that is, a team that was forced to make cuts in its hypothetical educational budget throughout the weekend – might be more likely to view the successively "reduced" budgets as inadequate compared to a Team working from smaller to larger budgets. Conversely, a Team working from lower to more higher levels might be more readily inclined to view the hypothetical "augmented" budgets as

adequate. The purpose of having the Teams work through the various scenarios in different orders, then, was to neutralize the possible impact of any such "platform" effect.)

Second, intra-team collegiality combined with inter-team independence meant that the Study would generate, by design, three consensus-based but autonomous sets of expert opinions concerning the adequacy of funding levels to deliver the basket. If these opinions happened to coincide at the end of the Large School Exercise, that would provide greater confidence in the reliability of the collective judgment of the panels concerning the sufficiency of Wyoming's new school funding distribution system and level of school support.

The six-member Green Team followed a scaled-down version of the Large School Exercise in the method it used to work through the Small Schools Exercise. The Green Team began with a conversation of the Committee as a whole, establishing areas of collective agreement and designing the elementary school programs. At the high school level, the full team broke into smaller groups to design the high school schedules and track students X, Y and Z through the programs. The products of the sub-committee dialogue were then brought back to the Committee of the whole for critical review and revision. The final products for all six school configurations were then adopted by the entire Green Team as representative of its collective thinking.

Each of the four Teams in the Main and Small Schools Exercises was attended during its deliberations by a MAP facilitator who was available should specific questions arise about the execution of the exercise. In practice, the MAP facilitators turned out to play a deliberately passive role in the Team discussions. The basic message of the facilitators – that this was an open-ended exercise with no "right" answers other than those which the Team, using its best professional judgment, arrived at – was quickly absorbed. As a result, after an initial set of consultations, the MAP facilitators were rarely asked to take part in the Team conversations. The experience and range of

backgrounds of the expert panel were evident in the efficient and confident manner in which they approached the various tasks of the exercises.

As previously noted, members of the expert panel were not aware of the purpose of the "research study" in which they were engaged nor were they aware of its possible implications for Wyoming school funding. This precaution was taken to preserve the panel's objectivity and to avoid coloring the professional judgment of the panel prior to the various Teams and individual members of the panel reaching their respective conclusions.

Responses of individual members of the panel of experts to Tasks #2 (Green Team) and #4 (Red, White and Blue Teams) indicate that none of them felt that MAP's facilitators had attempted to impose their values or opinions on the participants. (See Appendix H, "Response Sheets of Panel Members to Task # 2/4, Validation of Research Process.") Asked to grade the following statement - "The researchers did not impose their values on me" – on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being "strongly agree" and 1 being "do not agree," 16 panel members responded with a "5," one panel member responded with a "4/5," and one responded with a "5+".

III. RESULTS OF THE EXERCISES

As previously noted, the Education Funding Adequacy Study includes two sets of exercises. The first is directed at the regular school setting, the second at the small school setting. The remainder of this section describes the results of the respective exercises.

Complete records of the work product of the three teams which worked on the Large School Exercise – the Red, White and Blue Teams -- are presented in Appendix F, "Reports of the Red, White and Blue Teams." In general, the reports show that the cost-based block grant model for funding public schools functioned as the May 1997 MAP Study predicted it would. That is, given three groups of educational experts operating under the same funding constraints, three significantly different curricular and

Hallmarks of the Red Team's program at every funding level included: relatively low class sizes, a transitional kindergarten-first grade program, instrumental and vocal music programs and a full time physical education specialist in the elementary grades; a traditional eight period block schedule in middle school with students taking courses in art, foreign languages, computers, music and vocational education as well as the core courses in English, social studies, science and mathematics. The high school program at all funding levels included a broad range of electives on top of the core courses, as well as a "school within a school" approach for "at risk" students. At the "Current Law" level of funding, the Red Team was able to buy extremely favorable average class sizes of 16 students plus foreign language instruction in the elementary years; a full time home-school liaison in middle school; and more electives in high school. At the "Example Three" funding level, the Red Team was able to budget handsomely for the introduction of instructional technology.

The White Team took a different approach. At the HEA #2 level of funding, it was able to supplement a standard elementary program (including part time nurse, art, music, and enrichment teachers) with two full-time Reading Recovery teachers to make sure all children learned to read on schedule in the primary grades. It also invested in Computer Curriculum Corporation's "Success Maker Software" – an individualized learning system that diagnoses student capabilities and provides suitable challenges to help support continued growth of slow and gifted students, alike. In the middle school the White Team supplemented its core offerings with rotations in physical education/health enhancement, art, technology education, foreign language and music. A support program modeled on the Montana Behavior Initiative – a program that helps students learn to resolve conflicts by using a variety of strategies to work out problems

before adult intervention becomes needed – was also included. The high school program included a full array of core and elective courses; several Advanced Placement courses; guidance and nursing services, the teaching of media and technology skills and a school to work program. At the "Current Law" budget level, the White Team added a part-time English as a Second Language teacher in the elementary grades; stipends for teachers to offer after-school enrichment in art, science and music productions in the middle school; and additional AP course work, a technology specialist and a Resource Officer (uniformed policeman, paid jointly by the school district and city – to ensure school safety and build rapport via community policing) in its high school. At the "Example Three" budget level, the White Team added a large investment in technology – equipment, software and the professional development training to use it effectively.

The Blue Team at the HEA #2 budget level designed an elementary program with small class sizes in grades K-2; half-time teachers in the elementary grades in music, health/PE, and foreign language; a three-quarter time reading specialist; full-time librarian; health aide, and a half time staff developer. A discipline-based art education program was to be taught by the homeroom teacher with the support of the staff developer. The middle school program was organized in four 90 minute blocks, with rotations in industrial technology, music, art, and health/physical education in addition to the core courses. All students would learn to keyboard. There would be a daily, half-hour "study skills" session in the home room. In high school, there would be an array of elective courses on top of the core offerings. At the "Current Law"' budget level, the Blue Team opted for smaller third grade class sizes and added a full time media aide in the elementary grades; added a reading specialist, nurse and life skills teacher in middle school; and added a school to work coordinator and an English teacher to reduce the teacher/student load in the core language arts courses from 125 to 100 per day in high school. At the "Example Three" budget level, the Blue Team added five additional contract days to the teaching year to create time for staff development activities, curriculum development and departmental collaboration without sacrificing instructional time. In addition, they hired a

full time home/school liaison at both the middle school and high school levels as well as two full time employees at the high school level to support extracurricular activities.

The panel of experts had two opportunities to register their opinion concerning the adequacy of the various programs they had designed to deliver the basket. At the conclusion of each program design task, the Team that designed the program was asked to come to a collective verdict – on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating a high degree of confidence and 1 indicating a complete lack of confidence – concerning the adequacy of the program to deliver the basket. The following table lists the response of the Red, White and Blue teams to this question, by budget level.

Team Level of Confidence

in Program's Ability to Deliver the "Basket."

(On a scale of l = "no confidence" to 5 = "very confident.")

The results of the Team responses indicate a high degree of confidence that the basket can be delivered within the budget constraints stipulated in the exercises. All team responses for programs designed at the Current Law and Example Three budget levels chose a "5" in response to the statement – giving their programs the highest expression of confidence possible. At the HEA #2 budget level, there is some evidence from the Table that the "platform" effect may have modestly influenced the judgment of the three teams concerning their ability to deliver the basket with the programs that they had designed. Thus, the Red Team, which started at the Example Three budget level and cut back its program in each of the next two iterations, showed the most misgivings of any group in their ability to deliver the basket at the HEA #2 budget level. Their score of a "3" for

degree of confidence in their baseline program was the lowest of any team under any budget. It indicated that they were still confident of delivering the basket, but not as confident as they were at the higher budget levels. The Blue Team, which started at the Current Law level, only downgraded their confidence at the HEA #2 budget level to a "4.5." The White Team, which started at the HEA #2 budget level and added services to it, was highly confident of their educational program's ability to deliver the basket at the HEA #2 budget level, grading it a "5."

The second opportunity the 12 panel members who took part in the Large School Exercise had to indicate their relative degree of confidence in the programs they had developed was afforded in Task #4 which they responded to individually. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being "strongly agree" and 1 being "do not agree", participants were asked to react to the statement: "The programs developed by my team would be realistic in the context of the school district where I work." One panelist responded with a "3"; one responded with a "4"; the remaining 10 responded with a "5," indicating general agreement that the programs arrived at were legitimate, realistic scenarios. (See Appendix H: "Response Sheets to Tasks 2/4, Validation or Research Process.")

In addition to the numerical scores, several of the panelists volunteered positive comments on their Task #4 worksheets about the Large School Exercise. "I strongly believe the 'basket' could be delivered at any of the funding levels," stated Panelist #1. "The resources were, in the opinion of our group, higher than what we had experienced," stated Panelist #2. "The process was a realistic simulation of how decisions are made in a public school district," wrote Panelist #17. There were no corresponding negative comments expressing skepticism about the ability of the various Programs to deliver the basket.

Complete records of the work product of the six-member Green Team which worked on the Small Schools Exercise are presented in Appendix G, "Report of the Green

Team." The Green Team designed six programs to deliver the basket at a budget corresponding to present Wyoming law in elementary schools of 30, 100 and 200 students; and in high schools of 48, 100 and 300 students. The elementary curricula featured a non-graded, looped structure with the teacher following students through several grade levels with outcomes measured against established benchmarks. Class sizes in the primary grades were kept extremely small – 15 to 1 and lower. The program design emphasized the use of technology and distance learning to compensate for small school size and lack of on-site learning options. The elementary curriculum focused on the core subjects with additional opportunities for art, music, technology and physical education built into the schedule. Gifted children were provided with accelerated programs. The schools also included a heavy emphasis on professional development and peer tutoring opportunities.

At the high school level, students in the smallest configuration received a good basic program with enrichment (exposure to other languages, cultures and career options) provided via technology and distance learning classes. Students enrolled in the 100 and 300-student level high schools had on-site opportunities for business and vocational experiences through optional curriculum paths. Beyond appropriately diverse strands of the core curriculum, band, chorus and the arts were also offered.

The Green Team assessed the adequacy of the educational programs they had designed to deliver the basket at the conclusion of Task #1. On a scale of 1 to 5, in which 1 indicated "not confident" and 5 indicated "very confident", the team graded out its programs as follows:

The Green Team's main concern with the high school of 48 – that students had few alternatives available beyond the basic core schedule and little room for exploring vocation and career options – was addressed in their program design via the use of distance learning and independent study and seminar options. Nevertheless, the endemic restrictions of the small high school were sufficiently daunting that the Team felt obliged to describe itself as merely "confident" that the basket could be delivered to every student, not "highly confident." In all school configurations of 100 students or greater, however, the Team was "highly confident" of its programs being able to deliver access to the basket to every student.

In Task #2 the six members of the Green Team responded to the statement, "The programs developed by my team would be realistic in the context of the school district where I work." On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being "strongly agree" and 1 being "do not agree", one panelist graded the realism of the designed programs a "3"; four graded it a "4"; and one graded it a "5." The panelist who graded the program a "3" explained in an accompanying comment that the budgeted expenditures allowed in the hypothetical program were "too high" to be realistic in terms of his district. Another panelist who graded the program a "4" wrote: "(My district) funding severely limits the kind of generous programs designed by our group." There were no statements from members of the Green Team indicating that lack of hypothetical resources had hampered their ability to design satisfactory programs. (See Appendix H: "Response Sheets to Task 2/4, Validation of Research Process.")

IV. CONCLUSION

After designing school programs under conditions corresponding to the level of resources and method of distribution of school funding in Wyoming, an independent, neutral and unbiased panel of education experts has concluded with a high degree of confidence that adequate levels of resources have been provided to deliver the basket of education opportunities to every student in the State. These conclusions are consistent

with those reached by Management Analysis & Planning, Inc., i.e. that the State of Wyoming provides adequate funding for every school in the state to deliver the Legislatively specified "Basket of Educational Goods and Services."

• has been a high school Principal for the past 20 years, including the past 9 years at a high school of 500 in a district of 1450 students. Has a cumulative 24 years of experience in K-12 education.