Costly estimates.

In the article "Exploring the Costs of Accountability" (Feature, Spring 2004), James Peyser and Robert Costrell discuss the critical question in K-12 education finance today: How much will it cost for a school with a particular set of student needs to meet a state's expectations for performance?

Over the past several years our firm has estimated the cost of an "adequate" education in several states; most of these analyses were completed before the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act became operational. We are currently helping a state estimate the costs that can be attributed directly to NCLB.

The authors conclude that NCLB's critics "greatly exaggerate the shortfall of federal resources." To make that conclusion, however, requires a full accounting of the costs likely to be incurred, including the expense of building accountability systems, undertaking school improvement, providing supplemental services, hiring highly qualified personnel, making schools safe, and managing information. The authors' suggestion that states could use a "triage" approach to focus resources on the most needy schools confuses what is likely to happen, based on the available resources, with what needs to happen in order to meet state and federal standards.

Where we disagree most with the authors is about how best to estimate the indirect costs of NCLB--the costs associated with meeting targets for adequate yearly progress. The authors reject two widely used approaches to making such estimates despite the acceptance of these strategies by state legislatures and courts.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The dismissal of the "professional judgment" approach eliminates a rational way of thinking about a hypothetical situation when research and statistics have not addressed the issue with any definitive conclusions. The authors are more supportive of the "successful schools" approach because it is based on some evidence of relative performance. While they prefer to focus on academic growth rather than on absolute levels of achievement, they choose to consider only the aggregate improvement in test scores. Aggregate improvement is one useful piece of evidence in the absence of full value-added information, but it is subject to error when used in isolation.

Given that every approach has limitations, it makes sense to us to gather information based on as many approaches as data will support and use the results to ensure that school districts have adequate resources.

The photographs accompanying the article "A Board's Eye View" in the Spring 2004 issue were taken by Patrick Harbron, www.patrickharbron.com. The editors regret the omission.

JOHN AUGENBLICK

ROBERT PALAICH

Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, Inc.

Denver, Colorado