College essay community service
LEA central costs (LEA): costs associated with management and administration of EPD such as salaries, general office expenses and LEA-level evaluations. Therefore, this category includes the majority of the activities listed in Column 4 of Table 22, including the provision of videos and employing consultants.
Payments to schools to coordinate EPD (Schools): payments to reimburse schools and coordinators for time spent administering and managing EPD (usually supply cover costs). Payments to mentors (Mentors): three LEAs made payments to cover the time costs of mentors. The word in parentheses for the five categories above is used as a category label in Figure 1. Comparisons between LEAs based on Figure 1 should be made with caution given that each LEA managed their own financial accounting processes. Some data was professional custom essays provided already categorised and it was not always possible to check whether the LEA-imposed categories matched those of the research team.
However interview data was used to collaborate financial data and thus any differences in categorisation will be minimal. Expenditure patterns shown in Figure 1 were somewhat indicative of the level of centralisation employed by each LEA in their EPD scheme i. LEAs providing a common curriculum or component (e. The expenditure patterns essay paper writing services in some LEAs require clarification. However, the majority of the top-sliced funds were paid back to teachers to cover their supply costs for attendance at the sessions. The LEA reported a surplus that comprised these top-sliced funds, suggesting that the top-slicing had not been necessary. On the other hand, LEAs H and I had a relatively large proportion of total expenditure accounted for by LEA costs, yet these LEAs did not top-slice any teacher allocations.
The LEA indicated that it did not have any surplus funds and it had to be assumed from this that the LEA had spent the surplus allocation on their own management and administration costs. LEA I had higher central costs than could be met by their management allowance and this was funded through levered-in time by LEA staff.
It might be expected that LEAs that did not top-slice any of their teacher allocation would show the same percentage of funds being allocated to teachers. The first and primary explanation is that there were differences in the value of levered-in time inputs across LEAs. Secondly, there were differences in additional resources or surpluses (because of the shortfalls in the predicted and eventual number of EPD teachers) between LEAs. It is important to state that the ratios reported here can only be used for comparative purposes. To assist in making comparisons, columns 3, 4 and 5 in each table provide further information on a theoretical maximum overall, of costs and of effectiveness. As a maximum, this cost-effectiveness ratio also assumes that each teacher gave the maximum effectiveness rating on the survey. It is not possible to conclude whether or not EPD is cost-effective overall from these percentages as there is no comparative intervention that college essay community service has the same objectives as EPD. Nonetheless, the tables do appear to report some satisfactory results. LEAs would show negative deviations from the theoretical maximum cost- effectiveness ratio (i. Column 4 shows the percentage of the theoretical maximum cost-effectiveness ratio that would have been achieved given the actual LEA costs, but with the maximum possible effectiveness scores. Scores above 100 per cent occur where LEAs reported an underspend.
Column 5 shows the percentage of the theoretical maximum cost-effectiveness ratio that would have been achieved given actual LEA effectiveness scores, but assuming full expenditure as in the overall theoretical maximum model.
Thus, the column reports the impact of effectiveness differences only. Surpluses therefore increased the percentage scores shown in Tables 2 and 3. Ceteris paribus if these events were both to occur in the same LEA, the positive and negative deviations would be set against each other to provide a net effect (which could be zero). It may be expected that the two percentages in columns 4 and 5 could be summed to provide the net effect shown in column 3.
However, the net effect (or overall theoretical maximum percentage) is the product of the cost and effects models.
It is important to note that the cost-effectiveness ratios in Table 23 will be higher and more varied when compared with those in Table 24. The results of college essay community service these two outcomes can, however be compared by looking at the percentage of the theoretical maximum cost-effectiveness ratios.
Three of the four LEAs with the highest cost-effectiveness ratios were those where teachers rated the effectiveness of EPD overall most highly (i. The results reported here thus indicate that these LEAs do not achieve their effects by spending more than others.
Thus, combined with high effectiveness scores, the models employed at these LEAs appear particularly efficient. That these effective LEAs do not achieve their effects by spending more money than others demonstrates the importance of CEA, especially in the light of the potential for LEA spending to vary, either positively or negatively, from the DfES allocations (e. The results shown here indicate that this is not the case, since this would be reflected in lower cost-effectiveness ratios.
Hence, these LEAs were efficient at resource allocation. LEA B did not have such high effectiveness scores (particularly with respect to the effect of EPD on professional practice), and the relatively high cost-effectiveness ratio is suggestive of cost-efficiency within this LEA. However, the provider of the centrally-run EPD course for this LEA received a subsidy, and it was not possible to ascertain the extent of this subsidy, hence it is not included in the results. This means that LEA B benefited from levered-in resources that were not accounted for in the CEA, which possibly made the LEA appear more cost-effective than it actually was. Further, LEA I had relatively low effectiveness scores. This suggests that money, while not being optimally allocated, may not be being wasted.
Column 4 of the tables suggests that this LEA spent considerably more per teacher than the DfES allocation. The expenditure patterns of LEA H were discussed above: it was noted that this LEA did not have as many teachers participating in the scheme compared with their funding allocation, yet the LEA did not indicate that they had an underspend. Column 4 of the tables also shows that LEA A spent considerably more per teacher than the DfES allocation. Part college essay community service of the surplus was spent on paying mentors for their time - Figure 1 illustrated that 25 per cent of total expenditure was allocated to mentors. The analysis suggests that in the case of this LEA, payments to mentors did not increase the effectiveness of the scheme for teachers. Tables 23 and 24 both show a range of about 45 percentage points in the theoretical maximum cost-effectiveness ratio.