Cost Benefit Analysis Final Draft essay

House Bill ass’s benefits justify the costs. The document considers several sources Of information to create a cost-benefit analysis Of current practice, as well as an analysis of the proposed practices to be imposed by the bill. The analysis also includes a cost-benefit analysis for an alternative policy to the proposed policies of House Bill 244. The document contains an assessment and analysis of multiple perspectives in order to determine the practice or policy with the most benefits for all stakeholders and persons of interest.

The document includes conclusions about which practices are most beneficial, including ways by which to diversify, along with recommendations on ways to maximize the quantifiable and nor-I-quantifiable benefits of enacting the policy. House Bill 244, a Cost Benefit Analysis Educational legislation-?enacted at the federal level, but implemented or modified based on state legislature or standards-?is an important part of present American society. A number of laws and strategies have been developed and implemented in an attempt to create competent or advanced students.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

These laws have been enacted to encourage students to become successful college learners, and later, successful in the workforce. In Georgia, there are performance standards that students must meet to demonstrate educational competency. The state uses exams to gauge whether students are performing at or above, or below, the expected competency level. Georgia has been a source Of scandal in recent years, with multiple instances of teachers changing incorrect answers on student tests in order to receive a successful competency rate.

While these incidents were not the norm, they did offer insight into the fact that many students do not perform at the expected competency level. Legislative Priorities (n. D. ) states that Georgia spires to”improve college and career-ready standards in K-12 public education [in order] to promote a more globally competitive workforce” (Education). Legislative Priorities also state that Georgia plans to “ensure [that] K-12 education funds are invested more efficiently and effectively [in order] to improve student outcomes” (Education).

In accordance with those goals, House Bill 244 was proposed. The bill was an initiative to alter the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O. C. G. A) to include legislation that would promote better outcomes in educational performance. Georgia voted to pass House Bill 244, and it will be implemented statewide as soon as is possible. The bill bares stipulations that one can assume may put dire constraints on the educational systems, which could also be harmful to performance outcomes. House Bill 244 will be explored and analyzed to determine whether the benefits of the policy justify its costs.

General Information Purpose The purpose of House Bill 244 is to ensure better, more competent student outcomes according to performance standards. Georgia expects to accomplish this goal by holding teachers more accountable for the outcome f student scores. The policy salsa stands to identify and address issues of professionalism and ability, for teachers, as well as school administrators. House Bill 244 ensures that educators and administrators perform at a level in which promotes 100% competency (House Bill 244, 2013).

Teachers and administrators who perform poorly twice, whether the poor evaluations are consecutive or not, lose their state certification and licenses in education under this policy (House Bill 244, 2013). Highnesses mandates ensure that only qualified teachers with successful student performance are allowed to educate Georgia students (House Bill 244, 2013). Relatively speaking, this should bolster and maintain high levels of student competency. Scope The scope for this analysis is two years.

The purpose for a two-year scope is to allow the first school year for adjustments, and the second school year to gauge whether or not House Bill ass’s benefits justify the associated costs. Displaced educators and administrators may receive more training, and then attempt to regain certification or licensing. Another purpose for the two-year scope is that it typically takes two-years to upgrade an undergraduate degree, r complete more training. An appropriate amount of time to receive higher education or training (such as a CAD, masters degree) is about two years, thusly, two years is an appropriate scope of time for this analysis.

Background and Overview House Bill 244 is in place to hold teachers and administrative staff members more accountable for student outcomes (House Bill 244, 2013). As Cardiac (2014) reports, there are roughly 8-10% of Georgia students who did not meet the criterion of educational performance standards, based on the results of Georgia Performance Standards standardized testing. House Bill 244 resents legislation designed to hold educators, as well as school or school district administrators, accountable for the results that students produce.

The current status quo of 8-10% of students failing to perform at or above the expected level demonstrates that the intents behind the No Child Left Behind act are not, presently, wholly manifested. House Bill 244 was drafted, endorsed, and supported with hopes to increase performance outcomes. The bill ensures that educators are professionally capable of educating the students in a manner in which the students can perform at or above the expected competency level (House Bill 244, 2013). Project References Please see the References page, located after the body of the paper, for a complete list of project references and sources.

Points of Contact For the completion of this project, three people were contacted to act as representatives of three groups of stakeholders. Mrs.. Holland White- Hammond acted as stakeholder on behalf of educational administrators’ interest. Mrs.. White Hammond provided a work-based email address, as well as a business phone number, as methods of contact. An unidentified teacher acted as stakeholder on behalf of educators’ interest. She also submitted the answer to her questions through her supervisor (Mrs.. White-Hammond).

Presumably, questions or concerns for the teacher are addressed via Holidays method of contact. Mrs.. Lisa Palmer, the parent of a child who failed to meet expectations for several consecutive years, acted as stakeholder on behalf of parents’ and students’ interests. Mrs.. Palmer provided a personal email address as the sole method of contact. The stakeholders answered a series of questions based on the group whose interest they served. Mrs.. White-Hammond offered professional and personal perspectives pertaining to the effects of House Bill 244 on an administrative level.

The teacher offered professional and personal perspectives pertaining to the educator level. Mrs.. Palmer shared her and her daughters personal feelings and perspectives on the effects of House Bill 244. Mrs.. White-Hammond said that she was neutral on House Bill 244. She stated that ensuring teachers remain qualified, and perform according to professional standards, is very important. She also shared that, at the same time, it would be overwhelmingly exhausting to have to train a new staff. The teacher expressed that House Bill 244 is unfair to teachers.

She said that it loud allow the possibility for good teachers to lose certification if faced with an overwhelming demographic of students who consistently perform more poorly than others. A more diversified teaching pool could serve to alleviate biased demographical competency, which calls for the enactment of a diversification plan. Lisa Palmer reported that she supported House Bill 244, as it provides an opportunity for “teachers who do not understand how to help the children comprehend a chance to be replaced by teachers who do. She shares that she and her daughter have felt that the system has failed her gather for years, and she states that she views this bill as a step toward redemption. Analysis Summary Assumptions and Constraints This analysis is predominately constrained to educators and administrators of middle grades students in grades 4-8. Statistics support that these students have the most issues with performance levels, which makes them the target grade level (Nation’s Report Card, 2014).

The analysis was performed under the assumption that there will be nearly as many teachers who do not perform according to standards as there are students. Based on research, this analysis assumes that between 4-9% of teachers will lose their ratification to teach under House Bill 244, and will terminate immediately. This analysis also considers the assumption that there may not be enough new educators generated to cover the loss. The US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013) reported that less than 6. % of people who received a bachelor’s degree in one year receive an education degree. There is also a shortage in qualified educators in Georgia that has spanned several decades (United States Department of Education Office of Post-secondary Education, 2014). Those statistics lead to the assumption that he demand for quality teachers may exceed the supply. Methodology In order to complete this analysis, research was conducted to determine the costs associated with the implementation of the new policies of House Bill 244.

A careful analysis Of diverse information was assessed utilizing a combination of publications, interviews, and other literature as outlined in the References section. Once the numbers had been gathered or generated, simple mathematic equations were performed in order to determine how costs could hurt or benefit the outcome of performance standards. Research onto costs associated with both current conditions and future assumptions culminate the information contained within this analysis, as well as the methodology used to compose the analysis.

Charts are provided in the appendices to graphically to represent the figures, analysis, and results of the proposed policy, an alternative policy, and the current policy prior to the proposed. The figures were estimated utilizing figures from available research on current figures and trends relative to the components of House Bill 244 Recommendations Based on assessment and analysis, it is recommended that the state school strict first attempt to train competent teachers. Perhaps the state might offer more help cover the costs of tuition in an attempt to keep teachers.

It could be a more cost effective and efficient to offer tuition assistance to educators with an unsuccessful performance evaluation. The arrangement might serve the teachers, the administration, and the students better. During a teacher shortage, it would not be wise for Georgia to lose a considerable amount of educators at once. This recommendation comes based upon the recommendation of administrative stakeholder Mrs.. White-Hammond, as well s is recommended by the teacher. The recommendation of a diversified pool of qualified educators is essential.

Diversity ensures that teachers of varied cultural, ethnic, or racial backgrounds are present within the school to accommodate a diverse pool of students. The United States Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (2014) reports that African-American students perform significantly poorer than other demographics. It is possible that culture variables interfere with learning outcomes, and as a result, diversification of educators is vital to the success of he students.

This diversification could provide exponential inconsequential benefits to all students, teachers, and administrators in the long run. House Bill 244 does not focus on provisions for diversification. These recommendations come with the intent of promoting quality, diversified education with unified competency results. Description of Alternative Current policy Prior to the creation of House Bill 244, there was no legislation in place aimed at promoting teachers’ accountability for their roles in poor student performance.

Some school districts had created and implemented individual leslies designed to increase the professional performance standards of the educators in order to promote competent student performance. Since these efforts were voluntarily created by each district, there is no information available on the specifics of each district’s efforts. The status quo for professional performance prior to the creation Of House Bill 244 indicated a need for reform. Several teachers, some as recently as a few months ago, have been caught up in test-tampering scandals.

Too many erasure marks on too many students’ cantors alerted test officials that something was miss. After a thorough investigation, they found that several teachers within the Atlanta Public School district had changed incorrect answers on students’ tests in order to give the illusion that students were meeting standards when they were not. A disturbing level of unethical behavior informed of a need to change policies. Proposed policy House Bill 244 is intended to solve the issue of poor performance by Georgia students by ensuring that teachers remain qualified to teach (House Bill 244, 2013).

The proposed policy maintains that any teacher or administrator who species two negative performances will lose certificates and licenses. The proposed policy removes teachers or administrators who do not perform according to the professional performance standards set forth for Georgia educators. House Bill 244 reinforces quality education via ensuring that quality, well-trained professionals teach the students. Qualified, certified candidates replace terminated teachers. Terminated teachers are allowed to reenter the candidate pool once they can show evidence of professional improvement or Career development (House Bill 244, 2013).

For a full list Of he strict and specific allotments and mandates contained within House Bill 244, please see the House Bill 244 (2013) document as outlined within the References section. Alternative Policy House Bill 244 exists on a sound premise by which the state should operate, but ethical implications could cause the need for an alternative policy. The alternative policy includes the same basic principles of the proposed policy with adjustments for ethics and integrity. Moser (2013) gives a brief yet concise understanding of ethics and social responsibility, with special attention to the classical theories and perspectives of ethics.

Demonology and utilitarianism are classic theories that stand to aid in the identification of what is to be considered ethical (Moser, 2013). Moser (2013) describes demonology as a theory in which a certain guideline of what ought to be, based on the consensus of one’s culture, religion, or society. Utilitarianism is a consequentiality theory in which acts that spawn the best outcomes, and benefit the most people, are the ethical actions (Moser, 2013). The demonology that a policy embodies should promote utilitarian ethics.

The proposed policy does not make specified provisions for the encouragement f ethics and integrity. A great alternative policy is one in which the students, teachers, and school districts all benefit, and the most ethical and socially responsible decisions are made. Utilitarian ethics holds that only decisions with the best outcomes for everyone are beneficial, which means that the proposed status of House Bill 244 could be considered unethical. One potential adjustment to the policy is to mandate that teachers who are at risk Of a second negative are mandated to return to school for added training.

This may help many teachers retain their jobs rather than experience termination. It would be relatively inexpensive to offer tuition assistance to at-risk teachers rather than to find replacements for them. If the educators receive a poor evaluation after extended training and education, then the educator will lose certification and licensing. This alternative policy considers the ethical ramifications of displacing hundreds of educators, and it attempts to offer a more viable, and efficient, policy for the state, the school districts, the administration, teachers, and students.

Costs Development and Operational Costs Due to the nature of the policy, House Bill 244 has limited developmental sots. The costs of development are similar to the costs of operations. The policy must allocate funds for personnel salaries, as well as funds to acquire or develop a statewide professional performance standard and evaluation system by which to assess the educators and administrators. Based on the assumption that school districts may want to train educators prior to dismissing them, the costs of career development and training programs must be accounted for as well.

Based on current and projected trends, the average entry-level educator profession pays $32,000, with 3% increases each ear after the first two years Of service are completed (Georgia Department of Education, 2013). Since the Georgia Department of Education (2012) reports that there are roughly 1 1 2,000 teachers, between 4,500 and 10,000 educators to be replaced due to negative professional performance. That would mean having to allocate that many salaries for teachers.

While some educators may be entry-level, it is safe to assume that some of the new teachers will have years of experience under their belts, which would mean starting them at higher salaries. An estimate of the average salary is about $39,000 annually or each new teacher hired, calculated by taking the median salary of entry level and the highest paid tier. The amount for the median amount of expected educators is roughly $283,000,000 annually. Most career and training development program costs vary based on the program and components.

Customized training and development is so customizable that it is hard to find a formidable quote for these services online. The assessment a few general training programs yields results that allow one to assume that customized training and development would cost at least statewide, and as much as roughly Depending on whether the company acquires the software to create and implement a performance evaluation standard, measurements, and testing instruments or whether school districts hire a third-party to do so, the price of performance evaluation tools varies.

Software would be the best route as it costs less than $3,000. To hire an agency to custom-create an evaluations program for multiple schools (where different evaluations based on expectations, assumptions, and type will be produced) could be extremely efficient for the State. The agency would also cost in the range Of tens or hundreds of hosannas of dollars more, and potentially millions. Since it is seemingly impossible to generate an average cost without submitting company info, the software will be accounted for in the case of this analysis instead of the more personalized development.

Nonrecurring Costs As most of the startup costs are also ongoing costs, there are not many nonrecurring costs associated with House Bill 244. One nonrecurring or seldom recurring cost is the cost to acquire performance evaluation programs for approximately 2,300 schools in Georgia (Georgia Department of Education, 2012). A capital investment of that nature would be too valuable not to use for several years before acquiring a new program. Software is also usually valid for several years before an updated version is released, and can be acquired in the form of an upgrade, which is usually extremely discounted from the purchase cost.

Capital investment and other nonrecurring costs. The capital investment would be the cost of the new salaries, the cost of the development of an evaluation program, and the cost of training, where applicable. The initial estimated capital investment is $291 to implement House Bill 244 tideway. Roughly $8,000,000 is for the nonrecurring costs of acquiring an evaluation program and a training program for all 2,300 schools in the state. The remaining costs are the recurring costs of the salaries of the certified teachers who remain.

There are no other nonrecurring or capital costs associated with this analysis of House Bill 244. Recurring Costs The recurring cost associated with this analysis is the $283,000,000 needed to cover the salaries of the new educators hired in lieu of those who lost certification to teach under House Bill 244. A monthly salary provision of 39,000, the median pay, would be disbursed to an estimated 7,250 newly hired educators. For each year of service past two, a 3% increase is added to the pay, so it is safe to assume that the recurring cost would experience a 3% increase each year.

Under these assumptions, the recurring costs for the first year would total $283,000,000 while the recurring costs for the second year should be roughly $291 The recurring costs should continue to increase by 3%, unless the state changes the pay schedule, over the life of the policy. Costs such as training or evaluation programs are not typically securing in the first few years as the material allocated can be kept and used for several years before needing to acquire new materials or programs.

Nonrecurring Benefits Since House Bill 244 promotes recurring benefits, and there are limited nonrecurring benefits associated with this bill. The most obvious nonrecurring benefit is the attainment of teachers to replace those who were professionally inadequate when appraised for performance. This benefit should be nonrecurring because the acquisition of qualified teachers should mean that the teachers perform well professionally, and the need to acquire ewe teachers should be a nonrecurring event, based on deductive reasoning.

Most other benefits associated with House Bill 244 are recurring benefits, per the intent of those who developed and passed the bill. Cost reduction, value enhancement, and other benefits. Low ongoing costs and nonrecurring costs are naturally as limited as possible to fulfill the purposes of the bill. There are no nonrecurring cost reductions provided through nonrecurring benefits. The policy was designed so that all benefits are recurring benefits. The costs associated with the nonrecurring benefits re ongoing operational costs that will increase by roughly 3% each fiscal year.

The value of Georgia school districts, as well as student performance outcome, will be increased through providing more qualified educators and administrators. The value of Georgians future job market is enhanced via the production of more college educated, qualified workforce participants. The more valuable job market will add value to Georgians overall socioeconomic status. Other benefits include a strengthened network of educators and administrators, which offers stability to the students and staff in a quest for laity education.

Recurring and Non-quantifiable Benefits Most all of the recurring benefits associated with this policy are non- quantifiable. The recurring benefits Of this policy include several factors previously mentioned. One recurring benefit is the need to hire fewer teachers, which provides stability to the school district as a whole via creating competent students. Qualified, certified professionals who meet or exceed the professional performance standards as set forth by the state are the only educators allowed to teach. Students should consistently perform at or above the expected competency level.

More college-ready students should complete high school. More graduates should go on to become successful college students, and then successfully participate in the workforce. These are the recurring benefits that Georgia intended when creating House Bill 244. These inconsequential, recurring benefits would be nearly impossible to quantify into measurable figures. Comparative Cost-Benefit Summary Cost of Alternative The costs associated with the alternative policy as prior presented would be the costs to cover the tuition assistance programs for teachers to further their education.