Figure 1: District and Charter School Revenues and Enrollments



Similar documents
Statewide Weighted for. District $9,577 $9,576 $9,560 Charter $7,597 $7,597 $7,376 Difference

District $12,004 $12,896 $11,661 $18,901 Charter $10,230 $10,230 $10,019 $10,823. District Charter District Charter District Charter District Charter

New Jersey. by Larry Maloney

(Figure 1). 1. District $9,763 $9,827 $9,741 $11,531 Charter $8,306 $8,306 $8,053 $9,738

Figure 1: District and Charter School Revenues and Enrollments

FY2003. By Jay F. May. Introduction

Washington, DC D F F D D D F F F C F D F D F F D F F F F D F F C C D OH WI. This chapter compares district and charter

PROPOSED FY MINIMUM FOUNDATION PROGRAM FORMULA

LOUISIANA CHARTERS 101

Georgia F D F F F F F D D A C F D D F C F F C C D OH WI. This chapter compares district and. charter school revenues statewide, and

New Orleans Enrollment Policies and Systemats

NEW YORK. Description of the Formula. District-Based Components

Factors Affecting the Earnings of districts and Charter School Funding

Financing Education In Minnesota A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department

Introduction WI F D F. in the analysis are weighted to compare district and charter

EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY. Louisiana Charter Schools Annual Report

School Finance 101. MASA / MASE Spring Conference Joel Sutter Ehlers Greg Crowe - Ehlers

(F)(2) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools (40 points)

Overview of State Funding for Public Education in Idaho

MISSOURI. Gerri Ogle Coordinator, School Administrative Services Department of Elementary and Secondary Education I. GENERAL BACKGROUND.

Louisiana s Minimum Foundation Program Formula: Analyzing the Results

Public Education in New Orleans: A Financial Analysis

Research Report HOW CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING COMPARES. Florida TaxWatch Center for Educational Performance and Accountability.

Public School Funding in Louisiana

Louisiana Believes Charter APPLICATION

Understanding Senate Bill

School Finance How Does it Work???

PROFILE OF CHANGES IN COLORADO PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN

LOUISIANA. Marlyn Langley Louisiana Department of Education. Terry G. Geske Louisiana State University I. GENERAL BACKGROUND.

THE EVERYDAY PERSON S GUIDE TO PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING in Louisiana FEDERAL. A Publication of ORLEANS PUBLIC EDUCATION NETWORK

MINNESOTA SCHOOL FINANCE HISTORY

Colorado s Current Use of a Single Count Day and Considerations if Average Daily Membership (ADM) is Used as a Funding Mechanism

Community School Legislative History

Technical Review Coversheet

VIRGINIA. Description of the Formula

Essential Programs & Services State Calculation for Funding Public Education (ED279):

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN

MINNESOTA SCHOOL DISTRICT LEVY EQUALIZATION. Purpose, History and Mechanics

2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature. PK-12 Public Education in Louisiana

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND

Issue Brief. Illinois School Funding Formula and General State Aid. August 2006

Classrooms First Initiative Council

Manual of Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pennsylvania Public Schools CHAPTER 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Chapter

WHAT SCHOOLS DO FAMILIES WANT (AND WHY)?

2005 SCHOOL FINANCE LEGISLATION Funding and Distribution

You re in the Right Place! If you can see this slide you have successfully joined The Coordinated Funding Request Webinar. We will begin shortly

How To Teach Online Courses In Australia

Assembly Bill No. 1 Committee of the Whole THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Pennsylvania Charter Schools:

CHAPTER The Education Equity and Property Tax Relief Act 1

SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO

Local Government Expenditure and Revenue Limits

Average Daily Membership Audit Report Primavera Technical Learning Center Arizona Online Instruction Program Fiscal Years 2012, 2013 and 2014

RI s Education Funding Formula. Introduction and Its Impact on Cumberland Students 02/04/2014

Informational Issue: School Finance Funding Case Studies

ILLINOIS SCHOOL REPORT CARD

Understanding School Choice in Alachua County: Funding School Choice in Florida

Educational Technology

ATTACHMENT D CHARTER SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN

ESE and Charter Schools RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The NEVADA PLAN For School Finance An Overview

Fast Facts. NOLA by the Numbers. School Performance Scores, October Background. A Closer Look: School Performance in New Orleans

February 2003 Report No

ACHIEVED! ACHIEVED! ACHIEVED! ACHIEVED!

2009 SCHOOL FINANCE LEGISLATION Funding and Distribution

BOARD OF REGENTS GUIDELINES LOUISIANA CLASSROOM TEACHER ENROLLMENT PROGRAM (CTEP)

CDBG Disaster Recovery Funds

SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO

July 2013 Colorado Department of Education Public School Finance Unit 201 East Colfax Avenue Room 206 Denver, CO

SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO

Initiative 1351 Fiscal Impact

FUNDING FORMULA Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Part 12 Statewide Online Education Program Act

Basic Funding for Community Day Schools

UNDERSTANDING COLORADO SCHOOL FINANCE AND CATEGORICAL PROGRAM FUNDING

The costs of charter and cyber charter schools. Research and policy implications for Pennsylvania school districts. Updated January 2014

(1) Bases the computations for steps 1, 2 and 5 on net enrollment only, eliminating the adjusted enrollment limits;

12/05/2014. Alaska Public School Funding Formula Overview SENATE BILL 36 THIS PRESENTATION PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF: Mindy Lobaugh

FUNDING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF FLORIDA S PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS

STATE OF ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ILLINOIS SCHOOL REPORT CARD

The Education Dollar. A Look at Spending and Funding Trends

Spring 2015 ELA and Math Assessment Results

BASIC ACADEMIC EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR HOME-BASED EDUCATION

Provisions Related to Children With Disabilities Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

FEDERAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES

DEFINITIONS OF IOWA SCHOOL FINANCE TERMS

New Hampshire. Charter Schools Program Monitoring Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education

Michigan League for Human Services. Proposal A, School Aid, and the Structural Deficit

State Comparisons: Aspiration States

MANY OPTIONS IN NEW ORLEANS CHOICE SYSTEM

ENROLLED SENATE BILL No. 619

FINANCING SCHOOL CHOICE IN MINNESOTA

ACHIEVED! ACHIEVED! (NOT YET) (NOT YET) ACHIEVED! (NOT YET) (NOT YET)

GUIDELINES FOR STATE AID PROGRAMS THAT REIMBURSE DISTRICTS FOR COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY EXPENSES

FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY

The days in session is used to calculate average daily membership (ADM) for students associated with this calendar.

School Finance 101: Funding of Texas Public Schools

Transcription:

Louisiana by Larry Maloney Summary and Highlights This snapshot examines the revenue sources and funding equity for district schools and charter schools in Louisiana and, in particular, New Orleans, during F 2006-07 (Figure 1). 1 In the following figures, the statewide values show how much per pupil funding districts in the state received compared to how much charter schools received per pupil. The statewide values weighted for charter enrollment adjust these figures to account for the fact that some districts enroll more charter students than others and the district PPR varies between districts. The weighted values estimate how much more or less per pupil funding charter schools received compared to the funding district schools would have received to educate the same students. (See Methodology for details.) Louisiana re-opened schools for the first time after Hurricane Katrina in F 2006-07. As a result, its school funding streams were highly unusual and not representative of the ongoing funding disparity in the state. The state, and New Orleans in particular, received an abundance of federal funds that year. Additionally, the districts paid for Figure 1: and School Revenues and Enrollments Louisiana (2006-07) Weighted for Enrollment New Orleans Per pupil Revenue $10,327 $30,654 $35,262 $9,971 $9,971 $9,589 Difference ($357) ($20,683) ($25,673) (3.5%) (67.5%) (72.8%) Per pupil Revenue by Source Federal $1,788 $1,812 $13,523 $1,812 $16,184 $1,791 State $4,358 $4,825 $5,243 $4,825 $5,444 $4,144 Local $3,749 $2,659 $10,070 $2,659 $11,503 $2,939 Other $407 $667 $1,164 $667 $1,336 $710 Indeterminate $25 $9 $653 $9 $795 $5 Total $10,327 $9,971 $30,654 $9,971 $35,262 $9,589 Enrollment 664,136 N/A 11,523 97.5% N/A 44.9% 17,263 N/A 14,128 2.5% N/A 55.1% Schools 42 N/A 31 Total Revenue $6,858,746,605 N/A $406,322,969 97.6% N/A 75.0% $172,125,700 N/A $135,467,252 2.4% N/A 25.0% Total $7,030,872,305 N/A $541,790,221 Percentage of Revenue by Source Federal 17.3% 18.2% 44.1% 18.2% 45.9% 18.7% State 42.2% 48.4% 17.1% 48.4% 15.4% 43.2% Local 36.3% 26.7% 32.9% 26.7% 32.6% 30.6% Other 3.9% 6.7% 3.8% 6.7% 3.8% 7.4% Indeterminate 0.2% 0.1% 2.1% 0.1% 2.3% 0.1% Change in district school funding if subjected to charter funding structure ($247.4 million) ($235.6 million) 105

many services for the charter schools in that year, but recordkeeping cannot substantiate the amount of support the charters received. As it was unclear how many students would return to the areas most affected by the Hurricane, estimates proved to be high, leading New Orleans and other afflicted parishes to acquire too many teachers, district personnel, and materials for the number of students who returned. As a result, the district per pupil revenues are inflated for F 2006-07, causing the disparity between district and charter schools to be considerably larger than expected. Highlights of Our Findings s statewide received total revenue of $10,327 per pupil, while charters statewide received $9,971, a difference of $357 (3.5%). Louisiana charter schools received $9,971 per pupil, but district schools would have received an estimated, $30,654 to educate the same students a difference of $20,683 or 67.5 percent. Weighting the district PPR for charter enrollment therefore increases the funding disparity by $20,326 from the statewide difference above. Figure 2: Per Pupil Total Revenue for Louisiana vs. Schools, F 2006-07 $10,327 $30,654 $35,262 $9,971 $9,971 $9,589 State $357 $20,683 Weighted Difference $25,673 New Orleans s taught 97.5 percent of the state s public school students and received 97.6 percent of total revenue. The state s charters taught 2.5 percent of the state s public school pupils but received 2.4 percent of total revenue. Primary Reason for Funding Disparities New Orleans data represents the first year of operation after Hurricane Katrina, and while the total revenue for districts and charters combined is accurate, the distribution of those funds between the districts and the charters as recorded is not. 2 s, by statute, do not have access to state or locally approved revenues for capital projects or debt service. How Louisiana Funds Its Schools Louisiana provides funding to school districts through a three-tiered Minimum Foundation Program system. Level I funding provided a base amount of $3,652 per pupil in F07 and established the percentage of this funding that originates from the state (65%) and the local community (35%). Level 1 also provides additional weights for at-risk students (19%), which the state defines as low-income and limited English proficiency students, vocational students (5%), special education students (150%) and gifted and talented students (60%). Level 2 of the Minimum Foundation Program rewards communities that contribute more toward education funding through increased local tax revenues by providing additional state funding. Level 3 of the formula provides funding for employee pay raises. How Louisiana Funds Its Schools Louisiana charter schools, in general, receive revenue via the same funding formula used for districts, with some exceptions. s receive funding based on the Minimum Foundation Payment formula as do the districts. However, the distribution of funds varies depending on the type of charter. Type I, III and IV charters receive their funding from their authorizers. Type II and Type V charters receive funding based on the foundation

formula directly from the state. While state law provides charters with access to local funding, it does exclude any funds appropriated by the legislature or approved locally by voters for capital expenditures or debt service. Policies that effect charter school funding are summarized in Figure 3. Figure 3: State School Policies State Policies es No Partial schools receive their funding directly from the state 3 schools are eligible for local funding Cap on funding a charter school can receive public schools receive differential funding (e.g. more funding for 9-12 vs. K-8 schools) 4 schools receive differential funding 5 State allows district to withhold funding from charter schools for providing administrative services State "holds harmless" district funding for charter enrollment 6 School is considered LEA if authorized by non-district organization School is considered LEA if authorized by district 8 Cap on number of charter schools 9 Cap on number of charter schools authorized per year Cap on number of students attending charter schools 10 schools have an open enrollment policy 11 Facility Funding The Louisiana School Start-Up Loan Fund provides zero-interest loans to Types I, II and III charter schools, and the loans of up to $100,000 7 may be used for facility acquisition, upgrade and repairs as well as startup costs. The program is administered by BESE and is subject to annual appropriation by the State legislature, which released $680,000 for this program in 2007. Types IV and V charter schools do not qualify for this program, which represents more than half of the charters in New Orleans. Additionally, charters can access tax-exempt financing through the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority. Primary Revenue Sources for Louisiana s Public Schools Louisiana s districts received 3.5 percent more funding for public education than the state s charter schools. s statewide received $1,788 per pupil in federal revenue, while charters received $1,812 per pupil. s in New Orleans received $16,184 per pupil, while charter schools recorded $1,791 per pupil in federal revenue. New Orleans had such high federal PPR s in F 2006-07 due to large receipts of federal hurricane relief funds. (See Figure 4 for distributions of revenues by source), and, although the amount is unknown, some of these federal funds supported the charter schools. s statewide received less in state revenue than charters statewide, but the New Orleans district received considerably more in state revenue. s statewide received $4,358 per pupil, while charters received $4,825 per pupil, a variance of 9.7 percent. In New Orleans, districts received $5,444 per pupil in state revenue, while charters in the city received $4,144 per pupil, a variance of 23.9 percent. State revenue for this study includes capital provided to districts for servicing debt, a source of revenue charters do not receive. For local revenue, districts statewide received $3,749 per pupil, while charters received $2,659 per pupil, for a variance of 29.0 percent. In New Orleans, the variance is more pronounced: districts received $11,503 per pupil in local revenue, while charters received $2,939, a 107

variance of 74.5 percent. Again, due to the limited timeframe in which districts had to rebuild their school systems and subsequent accounting lapses after Hurricane Katrina, the total of local funds provided to the districts and the schools should be viewed as accurate, but the distribution of local funds between the districts and the charters cannot be viewed as accurate. Figure 4: Per Pupil Revenue by Source for Louisiana vs. Schools, F 2006-07 New Orleans New Orleans Weighted $1,791 $1,812 $1,788 $16,184 $13,523 $4,144 $4,825 $4,358 $5,243 $2,939 $5,444 $2,659 $3,749 $10,070 $710 $11,503 $667 $407 $1,336 $1,164 $653 $795 more government revenues per pupil than those that serve fewer at-risk students. in 2006-07, Louisiana charters enrolled slightly more students eligible for free or reduced lunch (68.5 percent vs. 61.4%) and had a greater percentage of charter schools that were eligible for Title 1 (93.0 percent vs. 80.1%). These charter populations should be cause for increased funding per pupil and therefore do not explain the charter funding disparity. Additionally, variance in grade level enrollments between districts and charters does not explain the reason for the funding discrepancy since Louisiana does not differentiate funding based on grade levels (See Figure 3). Figure 5: School Characteristics Louisiana (2006-07) Percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch s 61.4% 68.5% Percentage of schools eligible for Title I 80.1% 93.0% Percentage of students by school type: Primary (K-5) 48.8% 59.4% Middle (6-8) 19.2% 3.3% High (9-12) 24.8% 21.0% Other (K-12, K-8, etc.) 7.2% 16.3% Federal State Local Other Indeterminate The only funding category where charters generated more than districts is the non-public revenue category of other., charters raised $667 per pupil in other revenue, while districts raised $407 per pupil for a variance of 39.0 percent. In New Orleans, the advantage is reversed with districts raising more other revenue, $1,336 per pupil, vs. $710 raised per pupil for charter schools, a variance of 46.9 percent. Figure 5 compares charter and district school characteristics. Schools that serve higher percentages of at-risk students generally receive State Scorecard We have assigned rating to Louisiana based on the quality of data available, as well as the extent to which charter schools have access to specific streams of revenue (Figure 8). In Figure 8, we judged Data Availability on the ease of access to the information needed for this study and others like it. A rating of es means that all information was available through web sources or that it was provided upon request by state departments of education. A rating of Partial means some but not all of the data for the study were available either through web sources or through state departments of

Funding Formula Data Availability Facilities Funding Local Funding State Funding Federal Funding Figure 6: State Scorecard Findings s have access to federal funds according to state statutes (es = Percentage of federal revenue is greater than (>; black), equal to (=; black), or is less than (<; white) that of total enrollment for charter schools s have access to state funds according to state statutes (es = Percentage of state revenue is greater than (>; black), equal to (=; black), or is less than (<; white) that of total enrollment for charter schools s have access to local funds according to state statutes (es = Percentage of local revenue is greater than (>; black), equal to (=; black), or is less than (<; white) that of total enrollment for charter schools s have access to facilities funds according to state statutes (es = Percentage of facilities revenue is greater than (>; black), equal to (=; black), or is less than (<; white) that of total enrollment for charter schools State provides detailed, public data on federal, state, local, and other revenues for district schools (es = black, Partial = grey, No = white) State provides detailed, public data on federal, state, local and other revenues for charter schools (es = black, Partial = grey, No = white) s are treated as LEAs for funding purposes (es = black, Partial = grey, No = white) State funds student (black) or the LEA (grey) State funding formula is fair and equitable (es = LA > > > N < P 12 P S education. A rating of No means the data were not available either through web sources or through state departments of education. Separately, we judged Funding Formula based on whether or not charters were considered local education agencies (LEAs) for purposes of funding. es means that charters in the state are always considered LEAs for all forms of funding Partial means that charters are sometimes considered LEAs for specific streams of funding (such as federal revenue) or that only certain charters are education agencies (LEAs) for purposes of funding. es means that charters in the state are always considered LEAs for all forms of funding Partial means that charters are sometimes considered LEAs for specific streams of funding (such as federal revenue) or that only certain charters are considered to be LEAs. No means charter schools in the state are never considered LEAs for funding purposes. A state received a rating of fair and equitable funding if charters received fair and equitable revenue in all four revenue streams listed. Finally, we graded the state based on whether state funds the individual student needs via weighted funding formulas or through block grants to the LEA. Similar methods were applied to ratings for federal funding, state funding, local funding, and facilities funding. Endnotes 1 Revenue data was provided by the Louisiana Department of Education for all school districts, Type II and Type V charters. Revenue data for Type I, III and IV charters was compiled from audit reports. school analysis does not include revenue data nor enrollments for Jefferson Community School nor the LA High School for Agricultural Sciences as no independent audit for those two schools could be located. 2 New Orleans opened schools again for the first time since Hurricane Katrina in fall 2006. Several factors occurred during the planning for 109

reopening schools that affect the data in this chapter. First, Orleans Parish and the Recovery School planned for more students and their families to return to the city than occurred in practice. Without a way to determine the need for student services, many planning decisions, particularly for staffing, resulted in an over-capacity of staff for an under-capacity of students. Consequently, ramping-up for more students meant funds were released unnecessarily. Second, the districts needed to prepare their physical plants, most of which had suffered extensive damage from the hurricane. Additional funds were provided to assist districts in preparing school infrastructure to receive students. The federal government released $206 million to assist schools with infrastructure repairs $46 million of these funds went to New Orleans alone. The release of these funds increased the per pupil revenue for F07. Finally, according to interviews with the Louisiana Department of Education and with the Recovery School, the frantic pace of preparing schools for the new school year meant that funds used to support the opening of new charter schools were not categorized as such. While the RSD could not provide quantifiable numbers, the district indicated that the district paid for utilities, E-rate for new wiring and networking, debt service on former district buildings now operated as charter schools, transportation, flood/hurricane insurance, grounds maintenance and pest control. Therefore, while this chapter provides reliable information on total revenues provided to districts and charters in New Orleans, an unknown portion of the New Orleans district revenue numbers actually supported the city s charter schools. 3 Type II charters receive their funding directly from the state, while Types I, III, IV and V charters receive their funding from the local school board or the Recovery School. 4 At-Risk, Vocational Education, Special Education, and Gifted/Talented Students plus Small s are weighted to provide extra funding. 5 Ibid. 6 The state funding formula includes a Hold Harmless provision, but it is not in reference to the operation of charter schools. Prior to full implementation of the Minimum Foundation Program, some of the state s school districts were over-funded. While the under-funded districts have received funding that aligns with the foundation program, some school districts receive a hold harmless with the continuation of the per pupil level from the previous year. 7 State law indicates that Type II and Type V charters are considered LEAs for the purpose of special education funding 8 Ibid. 9 The state limits the number of Type I-IV charter schools to 42. The law is silent on a cap for Type V charter schools. 10 A charter school shall not enroll more than 120 percent of the total number of students that it is authorized to enroll pursuant to its approved charter. schools are not authorized to exceed a cumulative 20 percent increase in enrollment in each year of its charter. 11 schools are not forced to enroll students within a certain attendance zone. For example, Type I charter schools can accept students from anywhere in the district. Type II charter schools can accept students from anywhere in the state. Residency requirements of students eligible to attend charter schools are defined in each school s approved charter. Types I, II, III and IV charter schools may have admission requirements that are consistent with the schools role, scope and mission. Type V charter schools are open admission schools with no admission requirements. 12 The state provides the same level of detail for Type II and Type V charters as provided for districts in the state.