Executive Summary of 2015 School Finance Related Legislation

Transcription

1 Executive Summary of 2015 School Finance Related Legislation Even with a significant budget deficit forecast for and FY , the adopted biennial budget included significant new investments in the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grants and some schools of choice. In addition, legislation passed to encourage school districts to seek efficiencies to create local savings. At the same time, the budget flat funded most statutory formula grants. Other legislation was adopted that could substantively alter the education finance landscape. Here is a summary of major changes. Major new investments in the State Department of Education s (SDE) budget include: 1. $22.8 million in and an additional $7.4 million in FY to increase ECS i ; 2. $15.5 million in and an additional $9.2 million in FY to add grades/seats in existing charter schools and to add 2 new schools ii ; 3. $20.8 million in and a reduction of $3.5 million in FY for magnet schools. iii It is unclear how a reduction in FY funding will sustain the magnet school expansions contemplated in the Sheff v. O Neill agreement iv ; 4. $5.3 million in and an increase of $4.9 million in FY for the Open Choice program to meet the financial and programmatic requirements of the Sheff v. O Neill agreement; v and 5. $1.5 million in and an additional $3.0 million in FY to add one more high school class of 150 in each year at the J.M. Wright Technical High School in Stamford. vi Over the biennium, there are these major reductions to the SDE budget: 1. $260 million by flat funding categorical education grants, including Public Transportation, Adult Education, Special Education (Excess Costs), and Health and Transportation for private schools. vii This reduces the funded levels of these grants to less than 60% viii ; 2. $7.2 million by eliminating the School to Work program ix ; 3. $5.2 million to the Priority School District program x ; 4. $3.8 million to the Interdistrict grant xi ; and 5. $1.8 million to the Commissioner s Network of Schools xii. Other important legislation passed which could substantively alter the manner in which education is financed and include public acts which: 1. Eliminate the Minimum Budget Requirement (MBR) for high performing districts; potentially alter the MBRs for non-alliance districts, and abolish the minimum local funding requirements for Alliance Districts xiii ; 2. Divert $10 million annually in sales tax revenues to pay for ECS increases; xiv 3. Change some magnet school subsidies xv ; 4. Create a new accountability framework which could affect how certain grants (especially for low-achieving districts) are distributed; xvi and 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 1 Page

2 5. Establish task forces to look for regular and special education efficiencies and provide a process to exempt a limited number of innovative school districts from state red tape. xvii Greater details about these changes follow Legislative Session: Statutory Changes that Affect School Finance, Increase Costs, or Change Revenues P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev An Act Concerning Dyslexia An Act Concerning Minimum Budget Requirement SDE development or approval of K-3 reading assessments will be delayed until 1/16; administration of the new tests will be delayed until school year If student enrollments drop, higher income non- Alliance districts can reduce their MBRs up to 3%; lower income communities can lower their MBRs up to 1.5%. District efficiencies or regional cooperation savings can also reduce a non-alliance district s MBR by up to 0.5%. School closures can also result in MBR reductions for non-alliance communities. Top performing districts are exempt from MBR. Alliance Districts, or districts that were Alliance Districts, cannot reduce their MBRs. (amended in P.A. 15-5, JSS). The municipal minimal share portion of the Both state and local costs delayed. Potential municipal revenue gains for non- Alliance Districts which can reduce their education budgets due to enrollment declines, school closures, or proven efficiencies. Top performing districts could reduce education budgets without meeting these criteria. It also means that these districts would not have to use any new ECS funding for education. Alliance Districts (or former Alliance Districts) cannot reduce their MBRs. Alliance Districts will not have to meet an increasing municipal contribution to comply 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 2 Page

3 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev An Act Concerning Alternative Education An Act Concerning Early Childhood Educators and Initiatives An Act Implementing the Recommendatio ns of the Achievement Gap Task Force Concerning the Creation of the Director of Reading Initiatives at SDE An Act Requiring the Commissioner of Education to Develop and Submit a Comprehensive State-wide Alliance Districts MBR was eliminated. Creates a new framework for the creation of alternative education programs. Requires all public school preschool programs to be accredited. Creates a director of reading initiatives in SDE. Stops the development of non-sheff magnet schools until the SDE completes a comprehensive magnet school plan (due date: 10/1/2016). with their MBRs. Minimal cost to state; potential significant costs for districts that choose to create programs. xviii School district cost for self-assessments, initial fees, and ongoing fees. In FY , there was $300,000 available to assist with these accreditation costs. It is unclear whether these funds will continue to be available in FY xix No additional state cost since someone is already doing this job. xx Contains expansion of magnet schools outside the Sheff region which forestalls (for now) increased magnet school capital and operating costs associated with new 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 3 Page

4 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. Interdistrict Magnet School Plan An Act Concerning Chronic Absenteeism An Act Concerning The Office of Early Childhood An Act Concerning High School Graduation Requirements An Act Concerning Students Assessments An Act Concerning Increases state and local interventions for chronic school absenteeism. Allows children who do not live in School Readiness towns to attend School Readiness programs. Delays the implementation of high school reform provisions until the class of High school reform requires students to take more courses to graduate, pass five end of course exams, and complete capstone projects. Revises required high school examinations to allow for a national exam (like the SAT) in the 11 th grade vs. SBAC. Charter changes, some of which increase state schools. Administrative costs to both the State Department of Education and school districts. Possible additional costs to the court system if the number of truancy courts is increased. xxi No additional state cost; potentially unused slots could be filled by non-resident students. Both state and local costs associated with high school reform are delayed. Estimated cost of replacing existing SBAC tests with the SAT (for instance) would be about $2 million in each of FY and FY xxii Some administrative costs for the State Department of 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 4 Page

5 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. Charter Schools oversight. Education, charter schools, and charter management organizations. xxiii An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development The ECS grants are appropriated by town in the budget; the total grant is still underfunded by over $600 million. 1 In internal documents (OFA), it appears that there is $450,000 available to promote full-day kindergarten. xxiv 207 $10 million in each of both and FY will pay for Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant increases from the Municipal Revenue Sharing Account (MRSA). State cost of $30.1 million from FY to FY ; municipal revenue gain of the same amount. State offset of potential local cost (not a mandate). In FY , about 94% of CT kindergarteners were in a full-day kindergarten. xxv $20 million in sales tax revenues will be diverted to MRSA resulting in state revenue loss; municipal revenue gain. 5, June Special Session 324 An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 Concerning Full-year, full-time School Readiness rates increase from $8,670 to $8,927 (3%) State cost of $2 million included in budget. xxvi 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 5 Page

6 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. General Government, Education, and Health and Human Services 314,322 Families of non-low income preschool students in RESCoperated magnet schools will be charged tuition. The State will continue to assume the tuition costs for students who attend whose parents are considered to be lowincome. Tuition up to $4,053/year will be charged to higher income parents These grants will be capped during the biennium-transportation (both public and private), adult education, health grants to private schools and special education/excess costs, Creates a RESC Special Education Funding Working Group to study the funding and special education services provided by regional educational service centers (RESCs) and how they can be made more efficient. The state will continue to pay tuition for lowincome students. In FY , state costs for preschool tuition payments were $2.7 million. xxvii It is not known how much tuition revenue will come from higher income parents so state savings (from the $2.7 million) cannot be calculated at this time. State cost savings of $260.6 million; local revenue loss of $260.6 million. xxviii Until the study and the plan/models are complete, costs/savings cannot be calculated. Each RESC will be required to develop regional models for providing transportation, training, and therapeutic services 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 6 Page

7 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. for students with disabilities within their service areas. For the biennium, allows local boards of education to seek more than $3,250/student for transporting students in the Open Choice program. 255 Reduces magnet school subsidies for Sheff non-host magnet schools based on new Sheff agreement (to encourage higher Hartford enrollment). State cost (probably can be accommodated in Open Choice grant)/local savings. In FY , almost all of the Open Choice transportation funding went to regional educational service centers. xxix State savings if % of non-hartford students exceeds 50% of enrollments; revenue losses to magnet school providers (mostly CREC). Unclear whether these lost revenues will result in higher tuitions charged to sending communities (including Hartford). 307 New formula for calculating the magnet school grant for the Goodwin College Senior Academy magnet school and two part-time CREC schools (the part-time math magnet is being phased out). 307 Limits magnet school enrollment growth to existing schools adding grades, moving into new facilities, or to meet Sheff/racial diversity It appears that some level of cost savings to the state will occur, but the exact amount is not currently known. State and municipal cost avoidance to the extent that there will be some enrollment growth criteria Legislative Session School Finance Summary 7 Page

8 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. requirements Provides legislative approval to an extension (and amendments) to the existing Sheff v. O Neill stipulation and judicial order until June 30, Additional state costs of $12.4 million in FY 16 ($7.8 million for magnet schools and $4.6 million for Open Choice) and $9.1 million in FY 17 ($4.5 million for magnet schools and $4.6 million for Open Choice). xxx The agreement also requires the State to pay 95% of the capital costs for the relocation/renovation of three Hartford area magnet schools. xxxi 263 Creates a planning commission which will develop a strategic plan for education. Among its duties, the commission must recommend changes to funding policies that: align funding policies and accountability with the master plan, ensure that school district funding is equitable, and recommend ways to promote the efficient use of scarce school district resources. 344 Regardless of existing state school construction provisions, the Morgan Street School in Clinton is reimbursed for an additional $1.7 million in school construction costs. Any possible costs or savings cannot be determined at this time. The state will have to to reimburse Clinton for $1.7 million in school construction costs. State cost; municipal savings. Clinton s current 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 8 Page

9 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. reimbursement share for new school construction is: 32.86%. xxxii Creates a new accountability framework that includes student growth over time, absenteeism, career readiness, higher education attendance, physical fitness and civics/art The State Department of Education will appoint a receiver for Winchester schools. Additionally, all Winchester schools will be part of the Commissioner s Network of Schools. The exact formulas for determining the ranking of schools and districts is not specified in the act. The specific formulas will be in a report to the Education Committee on Jan. 1, Since some of the state s grants (e.g., Network schools, Priority Schools, and Alliance Districts) include student performance (as currently calculated), it is unclear how these new accountability formulas will affect existing state grants. A receiver is expected to cost about $525,000, the resources for which are expected to come from Winchester s Alliance District grant. xxxiii There are three schools in Winchester. Payments in FY for 16 network schools averaged about $770,000/school. xxxiv It is unclear whether 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 9 Page

10 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. the reduced funding in the Network Schools account will be sufficient to sustain an additional $2.3 million in potential additional costs. (The Winchester provisions appear to obviate the within existing appropriations language capping network schools funding). 258 Removes network school limits on number of schools per year and by district. It allows up to 25 schools/year (instead of 25, total); 5 rather 2 from a single district/year, and it removes the cap on the number of schools in a district There are a number of enhancements related to Bilingual education and services for English Language Learners (ELLs). A major change is the potential to increase (from 3 years to up to 6 years) the amount of time an ELL student can spend in bilingual programs. The regional educational service centers will have to study whether they can provide bilingual and ELL services in a more cost- With the possible exception of the Winchester schools, this change would limit the new schools to those which could be financially accommodated within the reduced Network Schools appropriation. There are expected to be additional administrative costs for the State Department of Education with more data collection and analysis requirements. xxxv Additionally, there will be additional costs for districts that have to pay for up to 3 more years of bilingual education. The budget includes $1.25 million in 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 10 Page

11 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. efficient and effective manner than school districts alone. Four school district ELL pilot programs are to be established and evaluated for effectiveness. 301 Establishes a process for up to 20 innovative districts to get waivers from a limited number of state laws and regulations. 334 Enrollment at Rogers International Magnet School in Stamford is allowed to increase Provides $180,000 in additional Priority School District funding to Norwalk in FY and allows it (plus an additional $70,000) to be carried forward to FY Specifies $440,000 for 40 seats at Highville Charter School in both and FY Specifies $495,000 for 45 seats at Common Ground Charter School in FY If more than 7% of East Hartford students attend magnet schools, the town and $1.75 million in FY to offset some of these additional municipal costs. xxxvi For the pilots and the program evaluation, costs of $350,000 are anticipated. xxxvii There could be local savings, the extent of which cannot be forecast at this time. Additional state costs of $900,000 included in the budget. xxxviii It is unclear how much these new seats will cost Stamford or the sending districts. Additional cost of $180,000 to state in FY ; increase in revenue of $250,000 to Norwalk in. It appears that this funding is already included in the budget. It appears that this funding is already included in the budget. Funding of $610,000 is included in the budget for this to 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 11 Page

12 P.A. 15- Sections Bill Title Description Finance/Cost/Rev. will only be responsible for a portion of the magnet schools charged tuition. 343 Diverts a portion of the state magnet school account to help defray East Hartford s magnet school tuition costs. 306 Proportionate reductions to the Priority School District grant which funds programs for many Alliance Districts. defray lost magnet school revenue. xxxix $220,818 reduction in magnet school lineitem to defray East Hartford magnet school tuition payments (which were reduced in prior section of the act). The PSD grant was reduced by 9% ($3.2 million) in Legislative Session School Finance Summary 12 Page

13 The Effect of Grant Caps on State Department of Education Grants from FY Through FY Grant Transportation of School Children FY Appropriation xl Appropriation xli 24,884,748 23,329,451 Adult Education 21,045,036 21,035,200 FY Appropriation xlii 23,329,451 21,037,392 Full Funding % During the Biennium xliii Underfunding of Grants During the Biennium 25.2% 138,341, % 5,027,408 Health and Welfare Services Pupils Private Schools 4,297,500 4,326,300 4,326, % 4,047,400 Excess Cost - Student Based 139,805, ,805, ,805, % 110,388,538 Non-Public School Transportation 3,595,500 3,451,500 Total 193,628, ,948,182 3,451, ,950, % 2,797, % 260,601, Legislative Session School Finance Summary 13 Page

14 The Education Cost Sharing Grant from FY Through FY Note: Alliance District communities (30 lowest performing districts) are highlighted in yellow. Town FY Entitlement xliv Entitlement xlv FY Entitlement xlvi $ Change from FY to $ Change from FY to FY % Change From FY to FY % Full Funding FY xlvii Andover 2,379,549 2,380,614 2,380,599 1,065 1, % 89% Ansonia 16,548,642 16,641,477 16,641,477 92,835 92, % 74% Ashford 3,933,350 3,933,350 3,933, % 100% Avon 1,233,415 1,233,415 1,233, % 100% Barkhamsted 1,668,460 1,678,323 1,678,295 9,863 9, % 76% Beacon Falls 4,128,939 4,155,524 4,155,471 26,585 26, % 80% Berlin 6,311,635 6,381,659 6,381,544 70,024 69, % 74% Bethany 2,053,378 2,063,112 2,063,088 9,734 9, % 82% Bethel 8,261,688 8,316,869 8,316,768 55,181 55, % 81% Bethlehem 1,319,337 1,319,337 1,319, % 100% Bloomfield 6,230,536 6,319,698 6,319,698 89,162 89, % 62% Bolton 3,046,046 3,052,646 3,052,630 6,600 6, % 91% Bozrah 1,249,912 1,255,401 1,255,387 5,489 5, % 82% Branford 1,911,260 2,119,926 2,426, , , % 44% Bridgeport 179,600, ,266, ,266,724 2,666,576 2,666, % 81% Bridgewater 137, , , % 100% Bristol 45,348,587 45,705,925 45,705, , , % 76% Brookfield 1,555,658 1,564,515 1,564,493 8,857 8, % 79% Brooklyn 7,087,589 7,110,490 7,110,430 22,901 22, % 86% Burlington 4,394,032 4,439,634 4,439,537 45,602 45, % 71% Canaan 209, , , % 100% Canterbury 4,754,383 4,754,383 4,754, % 100% Canton 3,457,436 3,488,569 3,488,492 31,133 31, % 70% Chaplin 1,893,763 1,893,763 1,893, % 100% Cheshire 9,506,203 9,664,954 9,664, , , % 61% Chester 675, , ,432 16,054 16, % 55% Clinton 6,502,667 6,502,667 6,502, % 100% 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 14 Page

15 Town FY Entitlement xliv Entitlement xlv FY Entitlement xlvi $ Change from FY to $ Change from FY to FY % Change From FY to FY % Full Funding FY xlvii Colchester 13,761,528 13,772,585 13,772,530 11,057 11, % 93% Colebrook 508, , , % 100% Columbia 2,573,616 2,589,653 2,589,623 16,037 16, % 82% Cornwall 85,322 85,322 85, % 100% Coventry 8,935,142 8,942,234 8,942,206 7,092 7, % 94% Cromwell 4,499,307 4,663,336 4,754, , , % 53% Danbury 29,554,523 30,705,677 31,698,975 1,151,154 2,144, % 52% Darien 1,616,006 1,616,006 1,616, % 100% Deep River 1,720,239 1,727,412 1,727,394 7,173 7, % 84% Derby 7,905,484 8,001,514 8,001,514 96,030 96, % 63% Durham 3,993,506 3,993,506 3,993, % 98% East Granby 1,377,206 1,435,957 1,481,760 58, , % 52% East Haddam 3,779,206 3,791,594 3,791,563 12,388 12, % 87% East Hampton 7,690,997 7,715,347 7,715,291 24,350 24, % 88% East Hartford 48,811,203 49,563,484 49,563, , , % 72% East Haven 20,004,233 20,004,233 20,004, % 87% East Lyme 7,138,163 7,138,163 7,138, % 100% East Windsor 5,789,350 5,810,543 5,810,543 21,193 21, % 87% Eastford 1,116,844 1,116,844 1,116, % 100% Easton 593, , , % 100% Ellington 9,722,237 9,822,206 9,822,009 99,969 99, % 72% Enfield 28,973,638 29,196,275 29,195, , , % 78% Essex 389, , , % 100% Fairfield 3,590,008 3,590,008 3,590, % 100% Farmington 1,611,013 1,611,013 1,611, % 100% Franklin 948, , , % 100% Glastonbury 6,552,432 6,773,356 6,921, , , % 53% Goshen 218, , , % 100% Granby 5,536,473 5,603,808 5,603,665 67,335 67, % 67% Greenwich 3,418,642 3,418,642 3,418, % 100% 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 15 Page

16 Town FY Entitlement xliv Entitlement xlv FY Entitlement xlvi $ Change from FY to $ Change from FY to FY % Change From FY to FY % Full Funding FY xlvii Griswold 10,922,908 10,977,669 10,977,557 54,761 54, % 84% Groton 25,625,179 25,625,179 25,625, % 100% Guilford 3,058,981 3,058,981 3,058, % 100% Haddam 1,823,044 1,925,611 2,034, , , % 50% Hamden 27,018,047 27,131,137 27,131, , , % 61% Hampton 1,339,928 1,339,928 1,339, % 100% Hartford 200,830, ,777, ,777, , , % 88% Hartland 1,358,660 1,358,660 1,358, % 100% Harwinton 2,774,080 2,779,898 2,779,876 5,818 5, % 87% Hebron 7,016,070 7,021,279 7,021,219 5,209 5, % 86% Kent 167, , , % 100% Killingly 15,871,254 15,871,254 15,871, % 97% Killingworth 2,245,206 2,245,206 2,245, % 94% Lebanon 5,524,550 5,524,550 5,524, % 100% Ledyard 12,178,128 12,217,314 12,217,227 39,186 39, % 88% Lisbon 3,927,193 3,927,193 3,927, % 100% Litchfield 1,517,026 1,525,262 1,525,242 8,236 8, % 81% Lyme 145, , , % 100% Madison 1,576,061 1,576,061 1,576, % 100% Manchester 34,476,141 34,864,748 34,864, , , % 69% Mansfield 10,186,654 10,187,542 10,187, % 94% Marlborough 3,201,941 3,234,990 3,234,918 33,049 32, % 70% Meriden 59,964,898 60,812,457 60,812, , , % 79% Middlebury 738, , ,010 75, , % 45% Middlefield 2,142,785 2,153,551 2,153,527 10,766 10, % 83% Middletown 19,648,776 19,861,550 19,861, , , % 60% Milford 11,381,824 11,381,824 11,381, % 70% Monroe 6,613,738 6,616,696 6,616,669 2,958 2, % 93% Montville 12,768,219 12,858,302 12,858,140 90,083 89, % 81% Morris 657, , , % 100% Naugatuck 30,805,615 30,831,003 30,831,003 25,388 25, % 85% New Britain 85,008,849 86,678,662 86,678,662 1,669,813 1,669, % 73% 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 16 Page

17 Town FY Entitlement xliv Entitlement xlv FY Entitlement xlvi $ Change from FY to $ Change from FY to FY % Change From FY to FY % Full Funding FY xlvii New Canaan 1,495,604 1,495,604 1,495, % 100% New Fairfield 4,468,243 4,492,869 4,492,822 24,626 24, % 83% New Hartford 3,187,717 3,197,865 3,197,830 10,148 10, % 83% New Haven 154,577, ,328, ,328, , , % 87% New London 25,677,518 26,058,803 26,058, , , % 78% New Milford 12,127,127 12,170,243 12,170,141 43,116 43, % 86% Newington 13,031,837 13,226,771 13,226, , , % 65% Newtown 4,441,264 4,760,009 5,105, , , % 48% Norfolk 381, , , % 100% North Branford 8,252,689 8,270,161 8,270,110 17,472 17, % 90% North Canaan 2,091,790 2,091,790 2,091, % 100% North Haven 3,393,016 3,677,315 4,023, , , % 47% North Stonington 2,906,538 2,906,538 2,906, % 100% Norwalk 11,275,807 11,551,095 11,551, , , % 77% Norwich 36,195,392 36,577,969 36,577, , , % 78% Old Lyme 605, , , % 100% Old Saybrook 652, , , % 100% Orange 1,185,863 1,350,098 1,623, , , % 41% Oxford 4,677,464 4,677,464 4,677, % 97% Plainfield 15,600,016 15,642,779 15,642,685 42,763 42, % 90% Plainville 10,405,528 10,507,328 10,507, , , % 75% Plymouth 9,913,763 9,952,004 9,951,918 38,241 38, % 86% Pomfret 3,136,587 3,136,587 3,136, % 97% Portland 4,394,272 4,440,331 4,440,226 46,059 45, % 69% Preston 3,077,693 3,079,403 3,079,401 1,710 1, % 99% Prospect 5,405,931 5,425,749 5,425,694 19,818 19, % 84% Putnam 8,471,318 8,498,260 8,498,260 26,942 26, % 86% 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 17 Page

18 Town FY Entitlement xliv Entitlement xlv FY Entitlement xlvi $ Change from FY to $ Change from FY to FY % Change From FY to FY % Full Funding FY xlvii Redding 687, , , % 100% Ridgefield 2,063,814 2,063,814 2,063, % 100% Rocky Hill 3,587,753 3,946,076 4,396, , , % 46% Roxbury 158, , , % 100% Salem 3,114,216 3,114,216 3,114, % 100% Salisbury 187, , , % 100% Scotland 1,450,663 1,450,663 1,450, % 100% Seymour 10,072,953 10,179,589 10,179, , , % 73% Sharon 145, , , % 100% Shelton 5,286,265 5,706,910 6,199, , , % 47% Sherman 244, , , % 100% Simsbury 5,633,072 5,954,768 6,264, , , % 50% Somers 6,024,473 6,068,653 6,068,546 44,180 44, % 75% South Windsor 13,071,926 13,159,658 13,159,496 87,732 87, % 81% Southbury 2,631,384 3,034,452 3,606, , , % 42% Southington 20,361,334 20,621,655 20,621, , , % 69% Sprague 2,641,208 2,661,506 2,661,473 20,298 20, % 81% Stafford 9,958,369 9,981,310 9,981,252 22,941 22, % 90% Stamford 10,605,319 10,885,284 11,109, , , % 53% Sterling 3,231,103 3,257,690 3,257,637 26,587 26, % 76% Stonington 2,079,926 2,079,926 2,079, % 100% Stratford 21,391,105 21,821,740 21,820, , , % 57% Suffield 6,267,018 6,345,468 6,345,284 78,450 78, % 64% Thomaston 5,737,258 5,740,782 5,740,750 3,524 3, % 90% Thompson 7,682,218 7,682,218 7,682, % 100% Tolland 10,902,485 10,929,052 10,928,981 26,567 26, % 89% Torrington 24,565,539 24,780,972 24,780, , , % 75% Trumbull 3,310,992 3,481,940 3,703, , , % 49% Union 241, , ,877 2,089 2, % 82% Vernon 19,650,126 19,650,126 19,650, % 76% Voluntown 2,550,166 2,550,166 2,550, % 100% 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 18 Page

19 Town FY Entitlement xliv Entitlement xlv FY Entitlement xlvi $ Change from FY to $ Change from FY to FY % Change From FY to FY % Full Funding FY xlvii Wallingford 21,769,831 21,866,589 21,866,413 96,758 96, % 87% Warren 99,777 99,777 99, % 100% Washington 240, , , % 100% Waterbury 132,732, ,528, ,528,710 1,796,087 1,796, % 72% Waterford 1,485,842 1,485,842 1,485, % 100% Watertown 11,951,602 12,035,017 12,034,849 83,415 83, % 79% West Hartford 18,181,174 19,872,200 21,469,839 1,691,026 3,288, % 50% West Haven 45,496,942 45,996,566 45,996, , , % 76% Westbrook 427, , , % 100% Weston 948, , , % 100% Westport 1,988,255 1,988,255 1,988, % 100% Wethersfield 8,518,846 9,022,122 9,548, ,276 1,029, % 50% Willington 3,718,418 3,718,418 3,718, % 97% Wilton 1,557,195 1,557,195 1,557, % 100% Winchester 8,187,980 8,187,980 8,187, % 96% Windham 26,753,954 26,816,024 26,816,024 62,070 62, % 82% Windsor 12,476,044 12,476,044 12,476, % 82% Windsor Locks 5,274,785 5,274,785 5,274, % 73% Wolcott 13,696,541 13,696,541 13,696, % 100% Woodbridge 732, , , % 83% Woodbury 942,926 1,106,713 1,347, , , % 41% Woodstock 5,463,651 5,473,998 5,473,975 10,347 10, % 93% Total 2,039,540,614 2,062,299,984 2,069,689,238 22,759,370 30,148, % 77% 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 19 Page

20 The Distribution of the Education Cost Sharing Grant by District Reference Group In FY and FY xlviii DRG xlix FY ECS % Share by DRG FY ECS % Share by DRG % Change Share of ECS from FY to FY $ Change of ECS from FY to FY A 0.54% 0.53% -0.01% 0 B 4.84% 5.12% 0.28% 7,283,233 C 5.11% 5.09% -0.02% 1,050,710 D 9.70% 9.80% 0.11% 5,135,624 E 4.55% 4.49% -0.06% 206,412 F 6.90% 6.83% -0.07% 703,850 G 15.83% 15.69% -0.14% 1,900,752 H 13.06% 13.14% 0.08% 5,594,633 I 39.48% 39.30% -0.18% 8,273,410 Total 100% % 0.00% 30,148,624 Observations There was no dollar change in DRG A from FY to FY DRG A s share of ECS grants fell due to the overall increase in ECS from FY to FY Legislative Session School Finance Summary 20 Page

21 Schools of Choice: From FY through FY Program FY Estimated l Appropriated li FY Appropriated lii $ Change FY 2015 to FY 2016 $ Change FY 2016 to FY 2017 % Change FY to FY Charter Schools 87,604, ,083, ,315,731 15,479,339 9,232,114 28% Magnet Schools 307,650, ,419, ,950,485 20,769,955 (3,469,495) 6% Vo-AG 10,985,565 11,017,600 11,017,600 32,035-0% CTHSS 154,609, ,029, ,152,813 12,420,262 4,123,345 11% Open Choice 33,016,736 38,296,250 43,214,700 5,279,514 4,918,450 31% Total 593,865, ,846, ,651,329 53,981,105 14,804,414 12% 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 21 Page

22 An Example of How the New Magnet School Formula Will Affect Non-Host Hartford Magnet Schools liii Example: Hartford students=40% Non-Hartford students=60% Total students=400 State Magnet Grant Calculation Hartford Students Subsidy/ Student liv Subsidy for Hartford Students Non- Hartford Students State Subsidy/ Student lv Subsidy for Non-Hartford Students Total State Magnet School Subsidy Prior Way of Calculating Magnet School Subsidies P.A JSS ,443 1,670, ,443 2,506, ,443 1,670, ,443 for # of students up to 50%, $7,900 for onehalf of students over 50% of enrollme nt 2,246,600 4,177,200 3,917,480 Magnet School subsidy Change -6.2% For a 400 student school with 60% non-hartford students and 40% Hartford students, the new formula will result in as estimated loss of state magnet school subsidy of about $260,000 or 6% Legislative Session School Finance Summary 22 Page

23 Endnotes i An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development, Conn. Act 244, Section 1, June, ii Ibid and Office of Fiscal Analysis Budget Sheet on the April, 2015 Appropriations Committee Budget, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: iii Ibid. iv Sheff v. O Neill proposed settlement agreement, signed February, 2015, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: v Office of Fiscal Analysis Budget Sheet on the April, 2015 Appropriations Committee Budget, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: vi Ibid. vii This is a calculation done by using current services (or full funding) for grants found in the Department of Education s proposed Biennial Budget for and FY , retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: _Education,%20Department%20of.pdf viii This is a calculation done by using current services (or full funding) for grants found in the Department of Education s proposed Biennial Budget for and FY , retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: _Education,%20Department%20of.pdf ix Ibid and Office of Fiscal Analysis Budget Sheet on the April, 2015 Appropriations Committee Budget, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: x Ibid. xi Ibid. xii Ibid. xiii An Act Making Concerning the Minimum Budget Requirement, 2015 Conn. Act 99, Sections 1-5, June 2014 xiv An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development, Conn. Act 244, Section 207, June, xv An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 Concerning General Government, Education, and Health and Human Services, Conn. Act 5, June Special Session, Section 307, June xvi An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 Concerning General Government, Education, and Health and Human Services, Conn. Act 5, June Special Session, Sections , June 2015 xvii An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 Concerning General Government, Education, and Health and Human Services, Conn. Act 5, June Special Session, Sections (special education funding) and 263(strategic plan for education), and 301(Innovative School Districts),June 2015 xviii Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015) fiscal note on H.B.7018, as amended, An Act Concerning Alternative Education, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from xix The funding came from OEC s School Readiness Quality Enhancement Funding. Without an updated Office of Fiscal Analysis description of the funding, it is unclear whether there will be a similar set-aside in this year s budget. For a description of last year s accreditation funding, please see the Office of Fiscal Analysis, Revised FY 2015 Budget, (2014) retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: _FY%2015%20Connecticut%20Budget%20Revisions.pdf xx Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015), Fiscal Note on H.B. 6974, as amended, An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Achievement Gap Task Force Concerning the Creation of the Director of Reading Initiatives at SDE retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: R FN.htm 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 23 Page

24 xxi Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015)fiscal note on S.B.1058, as amended, An Act Concerning Chronic Absenteeism, retrieved on July 12, 2015 from xxii Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015) fiscal note on S.B.1095, as amended, An Act Concerning Students Assessments, retrieved on July 12, 2015 from: xxiii Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015) fiscal note on S.B.1096, as amended, An Act Concerning Charter Schools, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: um=239 xxiv Office of Fiscal Analysis, Summary of Legislative Changes, unpublished raw data shared with Kathy Guay, May xxv Office of Early Childhood, Kindergarten Enrollment by School Districts, School Year , retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: xxvi Office of Fiscal Analysis, Appropriations Budget Sheet for the Office of Early Childhood, April, 2015, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: xxvii State Department of Education, FY 2015 Grant Payments Report, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: xxviii This is a calculation done by using current services (or full funding) for grants found in the Department of Education s proposed Biennial Budget for and FY , retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: _Education,%20Department%20of.pdf xxix State Department of Education, FY 2015 Grant Payments Report, retrieved from on July 14, 2015: xxx Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015) fiscal note on H.R. 26, Resolution Approving the Settlement Agreement in Sheff v. O Neill, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: xxxi Sheff v. O Neill proposed settlement agreement, signed February, 2015, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: xxxii State Department of Education, 2015, School Construction reimbursement rate for new construction, retrieved on July 14, 2015 from: xxxiii Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015) fiscal note on S.B.1502, as amended, retrieved from: xxxiv State Department of Education, FY 2015 Grant Payments Report, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: xxxv Office of Fiscal Analysis fiscal note on S.B.1502, as amended, An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 Concerning General Government, Education, and Health and Human Services retrieved on July 14, 2015 from: R00-FN.htm xxxvi Ibid. xxxvii Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015), Fiscal Note on Senate Bill 1502, as amended, An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 Concerning General Government, Education, and Health and Human Services, retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: xxxviii Ibid. xxxix Ibid. xl An Act Making Adjustments to State Expenditures and Revenues for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015, 2015 Conn. Act 47, Section 1, May xli An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development, Conn. Act 244, Section 1, June, xlii An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development, Conn. Act 244, Section 1, June, xliii This is a calculation done by using current services (or full funding) for grants found in the Department of Education s proposed Biennial Budget for and FY , retrieved on July 13, 2015 from: 2015 Legislative Session School Finance Summary 24 Page

25 _Education,%20Department%20of.pdf xliv An Act Making Adjustments to State Expenditures and Revenues for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015, 2015 Conn. Act 47, Section 18, May xlv An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development, Conn. Act 244, Section 33, June, xlvi Ibid. xlvii Kathy Guay/CT School Finance Project, Simulation of ECS Full Funding. Updated ECS formula components provided by the State Department of Education to Kathy Guay. xlviii Kathy Guay/CT School Finance Project, Simulation of ECS Grants by District Reference Groups for FY and FY ECS Entitlements xlix A DRG, or District Reference Group, is a way to group school districts with similar socioeconomic status and student need together. This classification system was last updated in 2006 by the State Department of Education in its June, 2006, Research Bulletin, which was retrieved on July 16, 2015 from: l Office of Fiscal Analysis (2015), June 30, 2015 Estimate of Current Year Expenditures, retrieved on July 14, 2015 from: z_June%2025,%202015%20General%20Fund%20Projections.pdf li An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development, Conn. Act 244, Section 1, June, The charter school amounts for and FY are an estimate based on the product of the Education Cost Sharing Town-by- Town in Section 33 of the act less $10 million in Municipal Revenue Sharing funding in both years from Section 207 of the act and $450,000 projected for full-time kindergarten found in an OFA document provided to KSG. lii Ibid. liii Kathy Guay/CT School Finance Project, Simulation of An Example of How the New Magnet School Formula Will Affect Non-Host Hartford Magnet Schools, July This simulation does not include the three magnet schools that have additional subsidy changes; Goodwin College and CREC s part-time Arts and Math and Science magnet schools. liv An Act Implementing Provisions of the State Budget for the Biennium Ending June 30, 2017 and Making Appropriations Therefor, and other Provisions Related to Revenue, Deficiency Appropriations and Tax Fairness and Economic Development, Conn. Act 244, Section 307, June, lv Ibid Legislative Session School Finance Summary 25 Page