School Funding Charts Supplement to Handout Recent Developments In School Finance Lance Melton, Executive Director MTSBA
2005 Session Funding Much better than usual but not enough to make up for 16 years of neglect $4,400 $4,089 $3,900 $3,757 State Support Per Pupil $3,400 $2,900 $2,665 Inflation and State Support Per Pupil, 1991-2007 State Support per pupil Inflation Trend State Support Per Pupil Per BLS. Website State Support Per Pupil in 1991 $$, Per BLS Website $2,400 $2,420 $1,900 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 Fiscal Year
What Were the Percentage Increases in the 2005 Legislative Sessions for Key State Spending Programs? Percentage Increases, Key General Fund Expenditures 2007 Biennium (Special Session Included) 30.00% Health and Human Services, 25.69% 25.00% 20.00% Corrections, 17.62% Percentage Increase 2007 Biennium 15.00% K-12 Public Schools, 11.78% Higher Education, 11.63% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% Health and Human Services Corrections K-12 Public Schools Higher Education
K-12 Has Fallen as a Share of State General Fund Spending K-12 Public Schools Spending As a Share of the State General Fund Overall - Historic Analysis 50.00% 49.00% 48.00% 47.00% 46.00% 45.00% 44.00% 43.00% 42.00% 2001 45.21% 2003 45.50% 2005 45.15% 41.00% 40.00% 2007 42.97% K-12 As a Percentage of State General Fund Spending 2001 Biennium K-12 As a Percentage of State General Fund Spending 2003 Biennium K-12 As a Percentage of State General Fund Spending 2005 Biennium K-12 As a Percentage of State General Fund Spending 2007 Biennium
What are the Proposals for Funding at this Time Superintendent McCulloch s proposed increase of approximately $99.1 million (a combination of present law adjustments and new proposals) is the largest funding proposal ever advanced by a superintendent of public instruction. Unfortunately, the May 1 submission date for executive agency budgets did not allow for consideration of either cost analyses currently underway, or two of the latest projections on the surplus (in June and October, 2006). Superintendent McCulloch has committed to pursuing additional funding increases in her budget upon completion of the APA cost analysis, and in light of the latest revenue projections.
What are the Proposals for Funding at this Time The Governor has not formally released his budget as of yet, but has committed to funding present law adjustments and full day kindergarten. We are hoping for significant additional funding beyond that, given the size of the projected ending fund balance as of October 4, 2006.
Progression of Projected Surplus Before Reserve, 2009 Biennium $1,000,000,000 $902,672,000 $900,000,000 $800,000,000 $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $509,700,000 $500,000,000 $433,284,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $267,438,000 $297,440,551 $180,800,000 $200,000,000 $162,438,000 $100,000,000 $0 2005 Legislative Session June, 2005 December, 2005 September, 2005 Post-Special Session June, 2006 October, 2006
What Has to be Done in the 2007 Session to Keep K-12 Public Education at Its Current Share of State General Fund Spending? Biennial Increase Proposals - Comparison of Key State Funding Proposals to Biennial Increase Necessary to Maintain K-12 Public Education's Current Share of State General Fund Spending-Based on LFD Projection of $350 million available beyond present law $160,000,000 $140,000,000 $150,641,039 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $50,900,000 $25,000,000 $0 Biennial Increase Beyond Present Law for K-12 at 42.97% of state general fund Biennial Increase Beyond Present Law, Superintendent McCulloch Proposal (*) Biennial Increase Beyond Present Law Governor's Funding Proposal (to date)
Funding K-12 Public Education is Within the State s Means - Our Economy is Performing at Record Levels! State and Local Funding Compared to Gross State Product 3.50% 1.20% 3.00% 1.00% State Funding Ratio 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% FY07 FY06 FY05 FY04 FY03 FY02 FY01 FY00 FY99 0.80% 0.60% 0.40% 0.20% Local Funding Ratio Ratio, Total State Funding to Gross State Product Ratio, District Property Taxes to Gross State Product FY95 FY94 FY93 FY92 FY91 0.00% 0.00% FY98 FY97 FY96 Fiscal Year
Examples of Needs That Must Be Addressed Increase in accreditation violations (Record High Number of Schools With Deficiency Status (13%) Perpetuation of Achievement Gaps (NAEP Test Scores) Graduation Rates for Minorities and Children in Poverty
Accreditation Violations 100% 90% 80% 3% 10% 5% 11% 5% 12% 7% 11% 10% 12% 9% 10% 13% 10% 70% 60% 50% 40% 87% 84% 83% 82% 78% 81% 77% Schools With Deficiencies Schools With Advice Accredited Schools 30% 20% 10% 0% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Achievement Gaps NAEP Achievement Gaps 300 232 247 274 293 250 259 272 200 212 231 150 100 F&R Lunch Eligible Score Non-Eligible F&R Lunch Score 50 0 Non-Eligible F&R Lunch Score NAEP Reading 4th Grade NAEP Math 4th Grade NAEP Reading 8th Grade NAEP Math 8th Grade F&R Lunch Eligible Score
Graduation Rates Montana Graduation Rates - 2005 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% Overall Graduation Rate, 84.80% American Indian, 63.60% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Overall Graduation Rate Note: Graduation rates for economically disadvantaged will be calculated starting next year and are anticipated to be similar to American Indian rates. American Indian
Summary of Steps Necessary to Restore Constitutionality of Funding 1. Define the basic system of quality schools (Accomplished SB 152) 2. Assess educational needs (Not Accomplished QSIC process broke down, but MQEC is conducting its own assessment, which could be used to satisfy the Court s Orders) 3. Implement Cost-Based Funding Formula (Must be based on the definition of quality and the assessment of educational needs)
What Can Policy Makers Do to Help? 1. Support a legitimate assessment of educational needs. Note: MQEC is in the process of commissioning such analyses, using both professional judgment and successful schools methodologies, and focusing on the Legislature s definition of quality in SB 152. Legislation will be developed for the 2007 Session. 2. Support a funding formula based on educational needs, not on the basis of politics, power, and perceived affordability.