School Finance Made Easy Part 1: Educational Instruction and Operation

Similar documents
School Finance 101: Funding of Texas Public Schools

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas Revised January 2012

Overview of the School Finance System

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

Sizing Up The Texas Budget: Public Education

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

A Cost Analysis for Texas Public Schools. Prepared by: Sponsored by: 2008 Update

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

The NEVADA PLAN For School Finance An Overview

MINNESOTA SCHOOL FINANCE HISTORY

2009 SCHOOL FINANCE LEGISLATION Funding and Distribution

Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP)

GUIDE TO THE TEXAS SCHOOL EMPLOYEES UNIFORM GROUP HEALTH COVERAGE ACT (HOUSE BILL 3343)

SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO

Consolidated Report of Texas Education Service Centers

LSC Redbook. Analysis of the Executive Budget Proposal. Department of Education

SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO

Overview of State Funding for Public Education in Idaho

SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO

How Utah Public Schools are Funded. Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel February 5, 2013

P O L I C Y B R I E F THE MISSOURI K-12 FOUNDATION FORMULA

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

School Finance Reform in Texas: A Never Ending Story?

2005 SCHOOL FINANCE LEGISLATION Funding and Distribution

Formula Adjustments and the School Finance System

NEW PHILADELPHIA CITY SCHOOLS FIVE-YEAR FORECAST

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

Austin ISD Frequently Asked Questions FY2013 Preliminary Budget

Rider Comparison Packet General Appropriations Bill

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

PROFILE OF CHANGES IN COLORADO PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING

TAX RELIEF AMENDMENT IMPLEMENTATION LIMIT ON GROWTH OF CERTAIN STATE APPROPRIATIONS

August 2014 Report No

SCHOOL LOCAL PROPERTY TAX OPTION 1999 Legislation

SCHOOL FUNDING COMPLETE RESOURCE

FINANCING SCHOOL CHOICE IN MINNESOTA

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPPORT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For the Year

OKLAHOMA. Jeffrey Maiden, Ph.D. University of Oklahoma. Amada M. Palliotta Oklahoma Senate Fiscal Analyst I. GENERAL BACKGROUND.

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

Understanding Senate Bill

FY2003. By Jay F. May. Introduction

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

INTRODUCTION. ODE/SF/SFA/sf-3/linebyline07/19/2005 2

NATIONAL STUDENT AID PROFILE: OVERVIEW OF 2015 FEDERAL PROGRAMS

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SUPPORT PROGRAM BASED ON THE FINAL COMPUTATIONS FOR THE YEAR

Oklahoma Educated Workforce Initiative Funding Oklahoma s Schools

SCHOOL DAYS AND LEGAL MAZE: CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE IN TEXAS

I. GENERAL BACKGROUND

New Jersey. by Larry Maloney

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

PROPOSED FY MINIMUM FOUNDATION PROGRAM FORMULA

Property Tax Cap and Tax Freeze Legislation Details for Fire Districts. Topics for Today s Session. Property Tax Cap - Summary

State Board of Directors for Community Colleges A.R.S

SCHOOL FINANCE IN COLORADO

uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf

Louisiana s Minimum Foundation Program Formula: Analyzing the Results

Figure 1: District and Charter School Revenues and Enrollments

VIRGINIA. Description of the Formula

Edgewood Independent School District Risk Management Department 5358 West Commerce San Antonio, Texas

TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Figure 1: District and Charter School Revenues and Enrollments

Funding North Carolina s Public Schools

Components 127th General Assembly 128th General Assembly

School & Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 Governor's Initiative. Our Children, Our Future 2012: The Education Initiative Molly Munger / PTA

Understanding Alabama Schools Accounting System. A Guide to State Allocation Calculations /4/2014. Funding Components.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

The Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program Saves State Dollars

ALASKA. Matthew D. Berman, Professor of Economics Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage

CHAPTER The Education Equity and Property Tax Relief Act 1

NEW PHILADELPHIA CITY SCHOOLS FIVE-YEAR FORECAST

Nevada K-12 Education Finance

NEW JERSEY. John White Analyst, New Jersey Legislature I. GENERAL BACKGROUND

The Basics of Quality Basic Education (QBE) Funding

SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING COMMISSION Summary of Final Report Released December 11, 2013

Published December 2009 by the Arizona Tax Research Association

Your Pension Benefits from The City of Atlanta and The Atlanta Board of Education

Senate Bill 6. Changes in the Adoption, Purchase and Distribution of Instructional Materials in Texas

COLORADO. Terry N. Whitney, Senior Policy Specialist National Conference of State Legislatures

Taxes Payable 2016 Property Tax Levy & Budget. December 15, 2015 Regular School Board Meeting

Primer Highway Trust Fund. Federal Highway Administration Office of Policy Development

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

9. Compensatory Education Guidelines, Financial Accounting Treatment, and an Auditing and Reporting System. Update 14

STATE OF ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Community, Early Childhood, and Adult Education Programs

Moving Forward: Addressing Inequities in School Finance Through the Governor s Local Control Funding Formula

Instructional Materials and Educational Technology

OUTCOMES FUNDING FOR TECHNICAL COLLEGES OF TEXAS: A MODEL

The districts are divided into the following four groups, based on student net enrollment per square mile:

Salary Scale Study E V E R G R E E N S O L U T I O N S, LLC

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

MISSISSIPPI. Gary P. Johnson Professor of Educational Leadership Mississippi State University

Overview of Teacher Retirement System of Texas

Budget Process Manual

HOUSE BILL State of Washington 64th Legislature 2016 Regular Session

TASA Summary of Education Related Senate Interim Charges. 80 th Legislature

Impact of the Medicare Part D Program on the NC Medicaid Program. Fiscal Research Division December 7, 2005

State Special Education Funding Formulas. November

LBB Performance Measures Comparison of FY 2009, FY 2011 & FY 2013 Big 10 Community Colleges with Statewide

LEGISLATIVE REVENUE OFFICE H-197 State Capitol Building Salem, Oregon

Transcription:

School Finance Made Easy Part 1: Educational Instruction and Operation Chandra Villanueva Policy Analyst villanueva@cppp.org

This slide deck is intended to provide an in-depth overview of the mechanics of the Foundation School Program the primary way that state aid is distributed to public school districts. Part 1 is focused on the formulas used to provide funding for educational instruction and operation of our public schools. Facility funding, which is also a part of the Foundation School Program will be covered in a separate publication.

The Foundation School Program (FSP) is funded by a combination of state funds and local property taxes Each biennium the Legislature sets the sum certain appropriation for the FSP this is a specific and set amount of money that districts are entitled to under current school finance laws. Schools are funded by a combination of local revenue and state aid. When district property values increase, like we ve seen over the last several bienniums, the amount of state aid needed to meet the entitlement decreases. State aid comes from five different sources: Property Tax Relief Fund (Other Fund), Recapture Payments (Other Funds), Available School Fund (General Revenue), Lottery Proceeds (General Revenue), Foundation School Fund (General Revenue). The Foundation School Fund is the primary source of General Revenue for schools. When any of the other four funding sources increase, the Foundation School Fund portion decreases.

51.4% of total FSP funding is local tax revenue Source: LBB Fiscal Size-Up 2014-15 biennium FSP Appropriation

The instructional and operational formula of the Foundation School Program is broken into two tiers. Tier I Basic Program Funding (generally the first $1.00 of tax per $100 property value) Tier II Enrichment Funding (up to an additional $0.17 of tax effort) Golden Pennies (first 6 pennies) Copper Pennies (final 11 pennies) Tier I is supposed to provide districts adequate funding to deliver a basic education program. However, almost all districts find they cannot provide an adequate level of education with their Tier I funding and must increase their tax rate in order to access Tier II funding just to make ends meet. In FY 2014, ninety percent of districts were taxing at $1.04 or above (the highest rate possible without going through a tax election), and 28 percent of districts had reached the tax cap of $1.17. Start with Tier I.

Step 1: Adjustments are made based on district characteristics Cost of Education Index (CEI) based on 1989-1990 district characteristics such as size of district, teacher salaries of neighboring districts, % of low-income students in the district. The CEI has not been updated since 1991 Multiplier ranges from 1.02 to 1.20 Basic Allotment amount that every school district is guaranteed to receive in state and local funds for each student in Average Daily Attendance (ADA) $4,950 for FY2014 $5,040 for FY2015 Adjustments are made Adjusted Allotment (AA) Small or Mid- Size District Adjustment Sparsity Adjustment

Step 2: Adjustments are made for student characteristics Start with the Regular Program Allotment Regular Program Allotment Adjusted Allotment Regular Education ADA (students not eligible for weighted funding) Regular Program Adjustment Factor (RPAF) Created in 2011 to reduce the regular program allotment. It was set to 100% for 2014 and 2015, effectively eliminating this reduction before it expires at the close of FY2015 Then make adjustment for the weights or allotments attributed to special populations. Weights and allotments are assigned for Compensatory Education (0.20), Special Education (1.1 to 5.0), Career & Technical (1.35), Advanced Course Career & Technical, Bilingual/ESL (0.1), Pregnancy Related Services (2.41), Military Allotment (only by appropriation), Gifted & Talented (0.12), Public Education Grant (0.1), High School Student, New Instructional Facility Allotment, Transportation Allotment. For example: The Compensatory Education weight is a 20% add-on for a student that is economically disadvantaged: Adjusted Allotment 0.20 Compensatory Education Enrollment (ADA) Compensatory Education Allotment For example: The High School Allotment allows for $275 per each student in ADA in grades 9 through 12: Adjusted Allotment $275 ADA for grades 9 through 12 High School Allotment Once all of the allotments are calculated they are added together to arrive at the Tier I Entitlement

Step 3: Calculate the State and Local Share of the Tier I Entitlement First determine how much revenue can be generated through local property wealth: Compressed Tax Rate ($1.00 for each $100 of property value for most districts) Prior year property value as determined by the Comptrollers Office Local Fund Assignment (LFA) The portion of the Tier I Entitlement that the district is responsible for Then the state s share is the amount of the Tier I Entitlement over the Local Fund Assignment Tier I Entitlement Local Fund Assignment (LFA) State Share of Entitlement If the Local Fund Assignment for a district is more than the Tier I Entitlement that district is subject to the Recapture provisions of Chapter 41 in the school code. One hundred fifty-three districts were subject to recapture in FY2015. Tier I Entitlement < LFA = Recapture Tier I Entitlement > LFA = State Aid Five Recapture Options: 1. Consolidate with another district 2. Detach property 3. Purchase attendance credits from the state 4. Contract to educate nonresident students 5. Consolidate tax bases with another district

Now on to Tier II. Tier II funding is based on Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) Take the Tier I Entitlement (subtract) Transportation Allotment (subtract) New Instructional Facilities Allotment (subtract) High School Allotment (subtract) 50% of the Cost of Education Index ----------------------------------------------------- Adjusted Tier I Entitlement Adjusted Tier I Entitlement Adjusted Basic Allotment WADA

Tier II funding is divided into two tiers golden pennies and copper pennies Step 1: Golden Pennies Golden pennies represent the first six pennies of the maximum 17 pennies of M&O tax rate districts are allowed to levy for Tier II enrichment, this is in addition to the $1.00 in Tier I. The state equalizes the amount of revenue a district receives for these pennies up to the rate Austin ISD is able to generate: $59.97 for FY 2014 and $61.86 for FY 2015. Districts that are able to generate more than the equalized amount are able to keep all revenue without being subject to recapture. The first four pennies, of the six, can be levied without a tax ratification elections. Yield per Penny of Tax Effort amount of revenue generated for each additional penny of tax effort per WADA < $61.86 FY 2015 Yield per Golden Penny $61.86 per penny per WADA Yield per Penny of Tax Effort amount of revenue generated for each additional penny of tax effort per WADA > $61.86 FY 2015 Yield per Golden Penny However much the property wealth generates; not subject to recapture Revenue from Golden Pennies. Revenue from Golden Pennies Number of Golden Pennies (Max of 6) Yield per Golden Penny WADA

Step 2: Copper Pennies Copper pennies represent the final 11 pennies of the maximum 17 pennies of M&O tax rate districts are allowed to levy for Tier II enrichment, this is in addition to the $1.00 in Tier I. The state equalizes the amount of revenue a district receives for these pennies up to $31.95. Districts that are able to generate more than the equalized amount are subject to recapture. Yield per Penny of Tax Effort amount of revenue generated for each additional penny of tax effort per WADA < $31.95 Yield per Copper Penny $31.95 per penny per WADA Yield per Penny of Tax Effort amount of revenue generated for each additional penny of tax effort per WADA > $31.95 Yield per Copper Penny $31.95 per penny per WADA (Subject to Recapture) Revenue from Copper Pennies. Revenue from Copper Pennies Number of Copper Pennies (Max of 11) $31.95 (Yield per Copper Penny) WADA The revenue from the golden pennies and copper pennies are added together to reach the Tier II Entitlement

What about Target Revenue? The Target Revenue system was created to ensure that school districts would not lose funding when M&O tax rates were compressed in 2006. This mechanism, often referred to as hold harmless, guarantees the same amount of funding per WADA as they would have received in the 2005-2006 or 2006-2007 school year (whichever was greater). If the a district is unable to reach the target amount with state and local funding in Tier I, the state must make up the difference with Additional State Aid for Tax Relief (ASATR). The Target Revenue system is scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 2017. The Legislature is implemented a Hold Harmless Reduction Factor to ease districts off this revenue source. Fiscal Year Hold Harmless Reduction Factor 2013 92.35 multiplied by a district s revenue target 2014 & 2015 92.63 multiplied by a district s revenue target Things to know about Target Revenue: Chapter 41 Districts (those in recapture) can still receive ASATR, and often become a net recipient of state aid as a result. Increases in a district s property wealth decrease ASATR. Increases in the Basic Allotment decrease ASATR. Charters receive an entitlement that is based on the state average ASATR amount.

What about the Available School Fund? The Available School Fund (ASF) is a per-student disbursement that every district receives based on the prior years ADA. Funding for the ASF comes from investment returns from the Permanent School Fund, 25 percent of the Motor Fuels Tax revenue, and transfers from the General Land Office. For property poor districts that receive state aid, the ASF disbursement is used as a part of that state aid. Property wealthy districts that do not receive state aid are still entitled to the ASF disbursement and those funds are not subject to recapture. The per capita ASF distribution was set at $261.27 by the State Board of Education on July 17, 2014.

District A Funding Footprint: Property Wealthy Source: Based on Equity Center 2010 2011 District Funding Footprint (Alamo Heights)

District B Funding Footprint: Property Poor Source: Based on Equity Center 2010 2011 District Funding Footprint (Edgewood)

Property Wealthy vs. Property Poor Funding Footprint Property Wealthy Property Poor Wealth Level (per WADA 2011) $953,659 $63,278 WADA 5,211 13,978 Compressed Tax Rate $1.00 $1.00 Adopted Tax Rate $1.04 $1.17 M&O Tax Collections per Penny per WADA $95.76 $6.18 Tier 1 Funding (adjusted) $5,343 $5,064 Target Revenue per WADA $6,253 $4,914 Tier 2 Yield per Golden Penny $95.37 $59.97 Yield per Copper Penny $0.00 $31.95 State & Local M&0 Revenue per WADA Tier 1 $5,343 $5,064 Tier 2 $383 $695 Hold Harmless added to Tier 1 $910 $0 TOTAL Revenue per WADA $6,636 $5,759 Source: Based on Equity Center 2010 2011 District Funding Footprint

Examples of Inequity Same... District Tax Rate Revenue Location Size Alamo Heights (Bexar County) San Antonio (Bexar County) Glen Rose (approx.. 2,000 students) Diboll (approx.. 2,000 students) $1.04 $6,243 $1.04 $5,036 $0.825 $8,424 $1.04 $4,881 Tax Rate Austin $1.079 $6,171 Amarillo $1.08 $5,094 Revenue Lamar Cons. $1.02 $5,475 Calallen $1.17 $5,475 Source: Equity Center

$10,714 $10,778 $10,573 $10,335 $10,675 $10,618 $10,490 $11,550 $10,647 $10,481 $10,049 $9,777 $10,079 $10,321 School Funding is Still Below Pre-Recession Levels Per-student spending, in 2014 $ 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: CPPP analysis of TEA appropriations plus local revenue values from LBB.

How far behind is school spending? 2008 total education spending averaged $10,490 per student 2014-15 per student funding averages $10,199 $291 per-student drop Need an additional $2.9 Billion to bring spending back to 2008 levels (biennial number)

What is the best way to improve adequacy and equity in school funding? Increase the Basic Allotment this is the rising tide that lifts all boats. Increasing the basic allotment reduces the number of districts on target revenue and reduces the number of districts subject to recapture in Tier I Update the weights, allotments, and Cost of Education Index most of the weights and allotments haven t been adjusted since they were created and most weights were not evidence or cost-based to begin with. Increase the guaranteed yield on the Copper Pennies some districts become classified as Chapter 41 once they access the Copper Pennies. An increase in the yield would reduce recapture on those pennies and provide more support to property poor districts who are most likely to access these pennies. Adjust the Basic Allotment for inflation districts see their buying power erode each year due to inflation. Making adjustments each budget cycle will help districts keep pace with rising costs.