Louisiana Accountability and Funding Systems: Impact on Students with Disabilities A Case Study Presented by: Shawn Fleming, Deputy Director, La. Developmental Disabilities Council Scott Richard, Executive Director, La. School Board Association Louisiana Developmental 1 Disabilities Council October 10, 2014
La. Development Disabilities Council Objective 7.3 2
Questions to Consider I How do poverty and disability impact school performance scores (i.e., why were kids diverted from Union parish schools)? What impact do students with significant disabilities have on a school system s financial health in the new age of competitive education reforms? Does Louisiana s education accountability system determine how well students are taught or which students are served in a school? 3
Questions to Consider II How do funding distributions to traditional and charter school systems contribute to each school system s financial health? How do differences in the types of students served interplay with School Performance Scores and funding inequities between the traditional and charter school systems? What will happen to students with significant disabilities when inequities in the state s accountability and funding systems cause traditional school systems to no longer have adequate funds to provide needed services and charter schools have not been required to build their capacity to serve all children? 4
Fiscal Risk Report: Union Parish Union Parish School Board is in the Dialogue category due to a low fund balance that has continued to decrease over the last several years. An adequate fund balance is critical in order to ensure financial stability in case of unexpected expenditures or circumstances. Union Parish School Board is aware of the severity of the dwindling general fund balance and is constantly evaluating all revenues and expenses in order to improve the situation. Over the past few years, about 40% of the student population in Union Parish has shifted to two charter schools in the parish. Union Parish School Board has taken the following steps: Closed two elementary schools this school year Joined forces with the charters schools, citizens, board members and staff to successfully pass a property tax and 1% sales tax for the purpose of school capital projects and school improvement. http://www.boarddocs.com/la/bese/board.nsf/files/9pht2f6d0107/$file/af_5.5_fiscal_ Risk_Assessment_Status_Update_October.pdf 5
R.S. 17:3991 State law requires Type 2 charter schools to serve no less than 85 percent of the average percentage of students who are at-risk enrolled in the local public school districts from which the charter school enrolls students. Definition of at-risk has changed over time relative to charter school law.: Act 477 of 1997 included disability as one of the characteristics charter schools were expected to serve in equitable proportions to local school systems. Current law: R.S. 17:3991 (1)(a)(i) That for Type 1 and Type 2 charter schools created as new schools, the percentage of the total number of pupils enrolled in the charter school based on the October first pupil membership who are at risk, in the manner provided in R.S. 17:3973(1)(a), shall be equal to not less than eighty-five percent of the average percentage of pupils enrolled in the local public school districts from which the charter school enrolls its students who are eligible to participate in the federal free and reduced lunch program. The remaining number of pupils enrolled in the charter school which would be required to have the same percentage of at-risk pupils as the percentage of pupils in the district who are eligible to participate in the federal free and reduced cost lunch program may be comprised of pupils who are at risk as is otherwise provided in R.S. 17:3973(1). For the purposes of fulfilling the provisions of this Section, the at-risk percentage for the city or parish school system shall remain fixed during the term of the approved charter at the percentage which existed during the school year that the charter proposal was approved, unless otherwise specified in the charter that the charter school will reflect the current year's at-risk percentage. 6
7
Academic Performance Impacts Poverty Matters Students in poverty tend to perform lower on academic measures than students who are not in poverty Disability Matters Students with disabilities tend to perform lower on academic measures than students who without disabilities Note: There are vast differences within all groups of children and there are some children living in poverty and children with disabilities who have academic performance matching or exceeding most students who are not in poverty or without disabilities, respectively. 8
Percent of Students Below Basic Percent of students with and without Disabilities Scoring Below Basic in 4th Grade Math NEAP 2013 60 50 40 30 20 SWD Not SWD 10 0 Nation Louisiana 9
Percent of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch Scatterplot of States: Average NAEP 4th Grade Reading Scores X Percent of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch (2013; r = -.80; r 2 =.65) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 NAEP 4th Grade Reading Scores 10
Percent of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch Scatterplot of State Percentages of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch X Students At or Above Basic on NAEP 2012 8th Grade Reading Proficiency 90 80 High Louisiana 70 60 50 Poverty 40 30 Low 20 New Hampshire 10 0 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 Percent of Students (w/o disabilities) At-or-Above 8th grade reading proficiency 11
Percentage Fed. Poverty Level Scatterplot of All Schools By Poverty and 100% School Performance Scores (SPS 2011) F D C B A High 75% 50% Poverty 25% 0% Low 0 50 100 150 200 SPS 2011 12
Percentage of Students in Sp. Ed SPS 2011 X Disability Percentage 100% F D C B A High 80% 60% Disability 40% 20% 0% Low 0 50 100 150 200 SPS 2011 13
Percent of Students with Disabilities Louisiana SPS X Poverty X Disability (2011) 35% 30% Alternative High Disability High Poverty 25% F Schools 20% A Schools B Schools C Schools D Schools 15% 10% 5% 0% Low Disability Low Poverty 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch 14
Caddo DeSoto Bossier Webster Red River Claiborne Bienville Lincoln Winn Union Jackson Ouachita Caldwell Morehouse Richland Franklin West East Carroll Madison Tensas City of Monroe Sabine Natchitoches Grant LaSalle Catahoula Concordia Vernon Beauregard Calcasieu Cameron Rapides Avoyelles City of Zachary City of Baker St. West East Washington Helena Feliciana Evangeline Pt. Allen Coupee Tangipahoa East St. Landry W. Baton Rouge Livingston St. Tammany Acadia St. Martin Lafayette Jefferson Davis Vermilion Iberia Iberville Ascension St. James Assumption s St. Mary Lafourche Terrebonne St. John St. Charles City of Bogalusa St. Bernard Orleans Plaquemines Jefferson http://www.boarddocs.com/la/bese/board.nsf/files/9pht2f6d0107/$file/af_5.5_fiscal_ 15 Risk_Assessment_Status_Update_October.pdf
Number of students 700 Enrollment Totals of Schools In Union Parish (2013) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 D'Arbonne Woods Charter School Bernice Elementary Downsville Charter Farmerville Elementary Farmerville Junior High Farmerville High 16
Student Populations School Enrolled Percentage of Students with Disabilities Percentage of Students on Free and Reduced Lunch SPS Letter Grade D'Arbonne Woods Charter School 562 6% 47% 90 B Bernice Elementary 165 10% 95% 53 D Downsville Charter 323 9% 55% 89 B Farmerville Elementary 606 15% 93% 58 D Farmerville High 572 15% 63% 63 D Farmerville Junior High 343 19% 86% 77 C Union Parish School Totals* 2009 14% 77% Union Parish Totals with Charter* 2571 12% 71% * Percentages Calculated from 2013 School Report Cards 17
Number of students Numbers of students on Free and Reduced Lunch and with disabilities by School In Union Parish Disabilities 700 600 Free and Reduced Lunch TotalEnrolled 500 400 300 200 100 0 D'Arbonne Woods Charter School Bernice Elementary Downsville Charter Farmerville Elementary Farmerville Junior High Farmerville High 18
19
Where does all the money come Federal from? State Local } Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) 20
MFP Weighted Funds Example Student (without add-on characteristics) Student At-Risk Student Gifted/Talented Student with Disabilities Student at-risk with Disabilities Per Student Total Base Rate $ 5,463 $ 5,463 $ 5,463 $ 5,463 $ 5,463 At-risk $ 848 $ 848 Disability $ 5,783 $ 5,783 Gifted/ Talented $ 2,313 Career/ Technical Units Student Total MFP Traditional School System Student Total Charter (Type II or V) $ 5,463 $ 6,311 $ 7,870 $ 11,340 $ 12,188 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 21
Federal IDEA funds School systems also receive a flat rate of federal IDEA funds for each student with a disability. 22
Causes of Inequities in Funding Traditional Public Schools Level $ 6,311 One: $ 6,311 Student weights Level Two $ 6,311 $ 11,340 $ 12,188 $5,463 Average Incentive per student for Local = $ 8,537 Tax Rates Net loss to public school Level system Three = $?? Pay raises, insurance, etc. Average per student funding level in traditional public $ 8,537 school $ 8,537 ± Local Taxes (Type II Charters) Charter Schools (Type II State Local -$? 23
Revenues vs. Actual Costs 24
Funding Levels vs. Student Costs: Who serves which students with disabilities? Traditional Public Schools Level $ 6,311 One: $ 6,311 Student weights Level Two $ 6,311 $5,463 $ 11,340 $ 12,188 $ 7,600 $ 23,200 Average Incentive per student for Local = $ 8,537 Tax Rates $Actual Costs Net loss to public school Level system Three =???? Pay raises, insurance, etc. Charter Schools (Type II & V) Average per student funding level in traditional public school $ 8,537 $ 8,537 $ 8,537 ± Local Taxes (Type II Charters) State Local 25
Estimated Actual Costs $12,000 Weighted Funding vs. Average Student Funding IDEA $ per stdt w/disability $8,000 MFP Average regardless of student characteristics Excess Funding $4,000 $- 26
Excerpts from a presentation by La. Department of Education to the MFP Task Force September 2014 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
A deeper dive into the students with disabilities served in Union Parish and D Arbonne Woods. 36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
2013-14 vs. 2014-15 MFP Comparison file:///c:/shawn%20folder/education/funds/mfp/mfp_tables_13_14_versus_14_15.pdf 49
Union Parish Tax Increase Impact 50
Schools as Financial Investments Charter Schools financial bottom line is a commodity Where do students with significant disabilities rank in the world of financial commodities and financial investments? 51
http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/newsletter/july-2013-charter-schools-and-rating-financial-performance52
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/06/04/why-hedge-funds-love-charter-schools/ 53
Progammatic Solutions from Financiers 54
Charfter Schools and The Profit Motive http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/16/charter-schools-and-the-profit-motive/ 55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63