An Introduction to School Finance in Texas

Similar documents
Financing Education In Minnesota

Michigan and Ohio K-12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency. Michael Conlin Michigan State University

Description of Program Report Codes Used in Expenditure of State Funds

Summary of Special Provisions & Money Report Conference Budget July 30, 2014 Updated July 31, 2014

GRADUATE STUDENTS Academic Year

Scholarship Reporting

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS REVISED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS ANALYSIS

Personnel Administrators. Alexis Schauss. Director of School Business NC Department of Public Instruction

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

Data Diskette & CD ROM

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Title I Comparability

Trends in Student Aid and Trends in College Pricing

ILLINOIS DISTRICT REPORT CARD

Invest in CUNY Community Colleges

DATE ISSUED: 11/2/ of 12 UPDATE 103 EHBE(LEGAL)-P

Governor s Office of Budget, Planning and Policy and the Legislative Budget Board. Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi

KSBA Staff Review of HB 520 Charter Schools Rep. Carney - (as introduced )

UCB Administrative Guidelines for Endowed Chairs

DEPARTMENT OF ART. Graduate Associate and Graduate Fellows Handbook

FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY AT DODGE CITY

House Finance Committee Unveils Substitute Budget Bill

Moving the Needle: Creating Better Career Opportunities and Workforce Readiness. Austin ISD Progress Report

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Higher Education. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. November 3, 2017

AGENDA ITEM VI-E October 2005 Page 1 CHAPTER 13. FINANCIAL PLANNING

STATE CAPITAL SPENDING ON PK 12 SCHOOL FACILITIES NORTH CAROLINA

About the College Board. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center

Value of Athletics in Higher Education March Prepared by Edward J. Ray, President Oregon State University

FY 2018 Guidance Document for School Readiness Plus Program Design and Site Location and Multiple Calendars Worksheets

UCLA Affordability. Ronald W. Johnson Director, Financial Aid Office. May 30, 2012

Table of Contents Welcome to the Federal Work Study (FWS)/Community Service/America Reads program.

TRENDS IN. College Pricing

IN-STATE TUITION PETITION INSTRUCTIONS AND DEADLINES Western State Colorado University

FTE General Instructions

WASHINGTON COLLEGE SAVINGS

Kansas Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Revised Guidance

Grant/Scholarship General Criteria CRITERIA TO APPLY FOR AN AESF GRANT/SCHOLARSHIP

Ho-Chunk Nation Department of Education Pre K-12 Grant Program

November 6, Re: Higher Education Provisions in H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Neal:

Trends in College Pricing

Understanding University Funding

John F. Kennedy Middle School

MINNESOTA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION

Fiscal Years [Millions of Dollars] Provision Effective

The Ohio State University Library System Improvement Request,

Higher Education Six-Year Plans

Question No: 1 What must be considered with completing a needs analysis for a family saving for a child s tuition?

Alvin Elementary Campus Improvement Plan

Trends & Issues Report

CHAPTER 4: REIMBURSEMENT STRATEGIES 24

Tale of Two Tollands

INTER-DISTRICT OPEN ENROLLMENT

Texas A&M University-Texarkana

Differential Tuition Budget Proposal FY

Rural Education in Oregon

Financial Plan. Operating and Capital. May2010

Council on Postsecondary Education Funding Model for the Public Universities (Excluding KSU) Bachelor's Degrees

Argosy University, Los Angeles MASTERS IN ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP - 20 Months School Performance Fact Sheet - Calendar Years 2014 & 2015

FY STATE AID ALLOCATIONS AND BUDGET POLICIES

Estimating the Cost of Meeting Student Performance Standards in the St. Louis Public Schools

Charging and Remissions Policy. The Axholme Academy. October 2016

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE FACT SHEET CALENDAR YEARS 2014 & TECHNOLOGIES - 45 Months. On Time Completion Rates (Graduation Rates)

A Comparison of State of Florida Charter Technical Career Centers to District Non-Charter Career Centers,

Greetings, Ed Morris Executive Director Division of Adult and Career Education Los Angeles Unified School District

PEIMS Submission 1 list

CHAPTER XXIV JAMES MADISON MEMORIAL FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION

State Budget Update February 2016

Iowa School District Profiles. Le Mars

NC Community College System: Overview

Lucintel. Publisher Sample

Post-16 transport to education and training. Statutory guidance for local authorities

Suggested Citation: Institute for Research on Higher Education. (2016). College Affordability Diagnosis: Maine. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for

Intellectual Property

Hampton Falls School Board Meeting September 1, W. Skoglund and S. Smylie.

Lakewood Board of Education 200 Ramsey Avenue, Lakewood, NJ 08701

NC Education Oversight Committee Meeting

Trends in Higher Education Series. Trends in College Pricing 2016

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

2010 DAVID LAMB PHOTOGRAPHY RIT/NTID FINANCIAL AID AND SCHOLARSHIPS

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) for. Non-Educational Community-Based Support Services Program

Community Enrichment

COLLEGE ADMISSIONS Spring 2017

2014 State Residency Conference Frequently Asked Questions FAQ Categories

Arkansas Private Option Medicaid expansion is putting state taxpayers on the hook for millions in cost overruns

Alex Robinson Financial Aid

A New Compact for Higher Education in Virginia

21 st Century Apprenticeship Models

Draft Budget : Higher Education

Global Television Manufacturing Industry : Trend, Profit, and Forecast Analysis Published September 2012

What You Need to Know About Financial Aid

Presentation of the English Montreal School Board To Mme Michelle Courchesne, Ministre de l Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport on

Shelters Elementary School

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The purpose of the Florida school district performance review is to identify ways that a designated school district can:

Evaluation of Teach For America:

Executive Summary. Laurel County School District. Dr. Doug Bennett, Superintendent 718 N Main St London, KY

A Financial Model to Support the Future of The California State University

Coming in. Coming in. Coming in

ARTICLE XVII WORKLOAD

DELIVERING A DEMAND LED SYSTEM IN THE U.S. THE ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPROACH

Milton Public Schools Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Presentation

Transcription:

An Introduction to School Finance in Texas May 12, 2010 Sheryl Pace TTARA Research Foundation space@ttara.org (512) 472-8838

Texas Public Education System 1,300 school districts (#1 in the nation) 1,025 Independent School Districts (Size ranges from 17 200,000 students) 275 charter schools, military, special districts 8,322 campuses

Texas Public Education System (cont.) 4.7 million enrolled students (#2 in nation) 4.6 million in ISD s (98%) 0.1 million in charter schools (2%) Enrollment increases 2% per year 646,815 school employees (#1 in nation) 327,663 teachers

African American Student Population 1999 2009 Growth/ Decline 14% 14% 0% Hispanic 39% 48% +9% White 44% 34% -10% Other 3% 4% +1% Source: TEA Snapshot 100% 100%

Student Population (cont.) Percent of Total Economically Disadvantaged 57% Limited English Proficient 17% Economically disadvantaged is defined as eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program. Eligibility income requirements are between $28,665-$40,793 annual income for a family of four. Source: TEA Snapshot 2009

Total Funding $48 Billion 2009-10 School Year Total Federal Funds $10.4 Billion (22%) Federal Funds Normally Received $4.5 Billion (9%) Federal Stimulus Funds for Special Programs $2.3 Billion (5%) Property Tax $21.8 Billion (45%) Federal Stimulus Funds Replacing GR & ASF $3.6 Billion (8%) State Funds $15.8 Billion (33%) Recaptured property taxes are included in Property Tax total rather than State Funds total. Source: General Appropriations Act and School District Self Report Data

Percent of 2010-11 Biennial Budget $55.3 Billion State and Federal Funds 30% of All Funds Budget ($182.2 Billion) $31.2 Billion State Funds 39% of General Revenue Budget ($80.6 Billion)

Dedicated State Funding Sources Billions Oil & natural gas production taxes $1.0 and electric utility tax Lottery (net profit) $1.0 Recaptured property taxes $1.3 Property Tax Relief Fund (franchise & cigarette tax) $2.7 Available School Fund $1.5 (includes ¼ of motor fuels tax = $760 million) Total $7.5 General Revenue makes up the remaining state portion

Expenditures Outside of Formulas Billions $ Teacher Retirement System Contribution and Expenses $1.69 Textbooks.54 District Incentive Pay Programs.20 Student Success Initiative.15 Pre-kindergarten grants.10 TEA Administrative Costs.14 State Assessments.05 Regional Service Centers, Windham School District, Day Schools for the Deaf.12 Schools for the Blind and Deaf.08 All Other.33 Total $3.40

School Finance System The majority of money each school district is entitled to every year is determined by two layered systems: 1. Formulas in the Foundation School Program. 2. Target Revenue system implemented in 2006 when school district M&O rates were compressed.

Foundation School Program Divided into two tiers + facilities Tier 1: Basic tier that determines the majority of a school district s entitlement through formulas. Tier 2: Enrichment tier to be accessed at the discretion of a school district. Facilities component.

Tier 1 Each school district is entitled to a base amount called the adjusted allotment for every student in average daily attendance (ADA). Amount is different for every district. Calculations begin with $4,765 (basic allotment) $4,765 is reduced if the district s compressed rate is lower than $1.00. 3 adjustments are made to the basic allotment. The largest of the three is the adjusted allotment.

Tier 1 Adjusted Allotment Adjusted Allotment is the largest of: 1. $4,765 x CEI (1 1/2% - 14% increase) 2. Result from #1 adjusted for small/sparse district (up to 63% increase) Small = 1,600 or fewer students 675 small districts (66%) [9% of students] 3. Result from #1 adjusted for mid-size district (up to 8½% increase) Mid-size = more than 1,600 but less than 5,000 students 188 mid-size districts (18%) [12% of students] Adjusted Allotments range from $3,697 to $8,322.

Tier 1 - Weights Some students are more expensive to educate so the state compensates by assigning weights to those students to generate more funding. Three Main Groups of Students: Regular Program 1.0 (100%) Career and Technology* 1.35 (135%) Special Education* 1.1 5.0 (110% - 500%) * Funded on FTE s = 30 hours of contact

Tier 1 - Weights (cont.) Regular Program Students AA plus an additional: Bilingual 10% (Limited English proficiency) Compensatory Education 20% (At risk of dropping out) Pregnant 241% Gifted and Talented 12% (Capped at 5% of ADA) Public Education Grant 10% (Transfers due to low campus rating)

Additional Allotments High school student Students at a new campus $275 per ADA $250 per ADA Students completing a virtual course $400 each Students w/parent on active duty Staff Allotment $650 each $500/Fulltime $250/Part-time Technology Allotment Available School Fund Transportation Allotment $29.66 per ADA $262 per ADA $0.68-$1.43 per mile

Tier 1 Entitlement AA x # spec. ed. x 1.1 5.0 + AA x # career/tech x 1.35 + AA x # regular x 1.0 + AA x # bilingual x.10 + AA x # comp ed x.20 + AA x # pregnant x 2.41 + AA x # gifted/talented x.12 + AA x # PEG x.10 + Other Allotments (high school, transportation etc.) Tier 1 Entitlement

Determine State and Local Share of Tier 1 Entitlement District s share of Tier 1 entitlement = District s Assigned Taxable Value x District s Compressed Rate State pays the remaining portion. If a district generates more than the total entitlement, the district pays the total amount and the excess may be recaptured.

Tier 2: Enrichment Tier District can levy tax above the compressed rate: $0.04 without voter approval Up to $1.17 with voter approval * Compressed rates range from $0.64 - $1.09 * 7 districts have an M&O cap higher than $1.17

Tier 2: Enrichment Tier Golden Pennies First $0.06 above compressed rate are equalized to the level of Austin ISD ($59.02 per penny per weighted student) and revenue above that level is not recaptured. 5 th and 6 th pennies require voter approval to access. Copper Pennies Remaining pennies up to $1.17 are equalized to $31.95 per penny per weighted student and revenue above that level is recaptured.

Equalization/Recapture Levels $1.20 $1.10 $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 Voter approval required 6 "Golden" Pennies Equalized to Austin ISD ($59.02) Not Recaptured Voter approval required for 5th and 6th pennies Equalization Levels for $1.17 Tax Rate $0.11 $0.06 Compressed Rate ($1.00 if 2005 M&O Rate was $1.50) 11 "Copper" Pennies Equalized to $31.95 Recaptured Voter approval required Compressed Rate Basic Allotment = $4,765 at $1.00 Recaptured $0.10 $0.00

Facilities Existing Debt Allotment (EDA): State equalizes to $35 per ADA for up to $0.29 for bonds on which payments were made in the last year of the previous biennium. Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA): School districts must apply for funds; state equalizes to $35 per ADA. Limited to the lesser of: (1) Actual debt payment (2) $250 per ADA or $100,000 (whichever is greater)

Facilities (cont.) $696 million state aid budgeted in the 2009-2010 school year. 803 districts levied $4.2 billion for facilities payments in 2009-10 school year. Total of $4.9 billion paid for school facilities in 2009-10 school year.

Target Revenue System In 2005 Supreme Court ruled $1.50 M&O rate cap was an unconstitutional state property tax because school districts did not have meaningful discretion in setting rates (West Orange Cove vs. Neeley). Legislature responded in a 3 rd called special session in 2006 by passing HB 1 and HB 2. Compressed M&O tax rates to 66.67% of the 2005 M&O rate and provided a minimum of $0.17 in discretionary pennies above that level.

Compressed M&O Tax Rates Compressed Rate # Districts % of Districts $0.64 2 0% $0.65 - $0.69 4 0% $0.70 - $0.74 3 0% $0.75 - $0.79 7 1% $0.80 - $0.84 16 2% $0.85 - $0.89 48 4% $0.90 - $0.94 141 14% $0.95 - $0.99 254 25% $1.00 543 53% $1.03 - $1.09 7 1% 1,025 100% Source: Texas Education Agency data; TTARA calculations

Target Revenue To ensure that no district lost money, each was guaranteed the greater of: 1.State & local revenue per weighted student that the district received in the 2005-2006 school year. 2.State & local revenue per weighted student that the district would have received in the 2006-2007 school year at the district s adopted 2005 M&O tax rate. 3.State & local revenue per weighted student that the district would have received in the 2006-2007 school year at the district s effective rate.

Target Revenue (cont.) The following were added to reach the final adjusted target revenue amount: Target Revenue +$2,500 per employee for pay raise +$275 per High School student Adjusted Target Revenue Amount

Target Revenue (cont.) In 2009, Legislature passed HB 3646 to bring more districts back onto formulas: Linked the basic allotment to the statewide average taxable value per weighted student, establishing the $4,765 level. Guaranteed districts a minimum of $120 per weighted student more than they would have received, but limited gains to a maximum of $350 per weighted student per year.

Target Revenue (cont.) If formulas generate less than $120 more per weighted student than the district would have received under previous law, the state contributes the difference. If formulas generate between $121-$350 more per weighted student than the district would have received under previous law, the district receives formula funding. If formulas generate more than $350 per weighted student more than the district would have received under previous law, the excess is withheld from the district s state aid or recaptured. New revenue amounts range from $2,561 to $13,092 per weighted student.

89% of Districts HB 3646 Revenue Target Revenue (cont.) HB 3646 Revenue Amounts at Compressed Rates % of # Districts Districts # ADA % of ADA $4,500 or Less 6 1% 1,543 0% $4,501-$4,750 28 3% 24,096 1% $4,751-$5,000 242 23% 589,868 13% $5,001-$5,250 346 34% 1,777,158 41% $5,251-$5,500 122 12% 787,870 18% $5,501-$5,750 70 7% 509,218 12% $5,751-$6,000 65 6% 381,867 9% $6,001-$6,500 68 7% 238,378 5% $6,501-$7,000 25 2% 39,241 1% $7,001-$7,500 23 2% 18,196 0% $7,501-$8,000 9 1% 9,207 0% $8,001-$8,500 6 1% 2,103 0% $8,501-$13,092 15 1% 4,579 0% 1,025 100% 4,383,324 100% 98% of Students Source: Texas Education Agency data; TTARA calculations

Target Revenue (cont.) School Districts Funded throughtarget Revenue vs. Formulas 208 Districts (20%) 1,339,325 ADA (31%) Formulas 36 Districts (4%) 95,266 ADA (2%) Target Revenue 781 Districts (76%) 2,948,733 ADA (67%) Data Source: Texas Education Agency

Recapture ( Robin Hood ) Recapture first became a part of our system in 1991 when the Legislature created 188 County Education Districts (CED s) in response to a Supreme Court ruling that mandated inclusion of property wealthy districts into the system. Consolidated the tax base of property wealthy school districts with the tax bases of other school districts in the county and surrounding counties if necessary. State set the tax rate levied by the CED s, and revenue was shared by districts within the CED. School districts levied a rate on top of CED rate.

Recapture ( Robin Hood ) cont. Current system was put in place in 1993 in response to CED s being ruled unconstitutional. Districts have five options to attain EWL: 1. Consolidate with another school district 2. Detach property to another school district 3. Purchase attendance credits from the state * 4. Contract with another district to send money * 5. Consolidate tax bases with another district * Voter approval required for options 3 & 4

Recapture ( Robin Hood ) cont. Equalized wealth level (EWL) was $280,000 taxable value per weighted student. EWL is the amount of taxable value a district has unrestricted access to. Revenue generated from taxable value above this level is recaptured. Hold Harmless provision so districts could retain access to enough taxable value to generate the same amount of revenue at $1.50 rate. 104 recaptured districts at that time.

Recapture ( Robin Hood ) cont. Currently have two equalized wealth levels per weighted student: EWL (per WADA) Tier 1 (District s Compressed M&O Rate) $476,500 Tier 2 Golden Pennies (Maximum of $0.06) N/A Tier 2 Copper Pennies (Remaining Pennies) $319,500

Recapture ( Robin Hood ) cont. 46 school districts have Hold Harmless wealth levels above $476,500. Hold Harmless (HH) levels range from $477,711 to $924,308 per weighted student.

Recapture ( Robin Hood ) cont. Amount Recaptured = Tax Collections x % of Taxable Value Above EWL or HH Percent of tax collections recaptured ranges from less than 1% to 88%. Estimated that $1.1 - $1.3 billion will be recaptured from a total of 211 school districts in the 2009-10 school year. 155 in Tier 1 and 56 more in Tier 2.

Recapture ( Robin Hood ) cont. In the 2009-10 school year, taxable values range from $18,000 to $6.8 million per weighted student. Average taxable value per weighted student is $284,859.

Tax Rate Ratification ( Rollback ) Elections If a school board adopts a tax rate that exceeds its rollback rate, they must call an election so that voters can approve or reject the adopted rate. Election must be held at least 30 days, but not more than 90 days after the rate was adopted. If voters reject the rate, the rollback rate is the school district s tax rate for that year. (512) 472-8838

Ratification ( Rollback ) Elections (cont.) A school district located in a disaster area is exempt from having to schedule a rollback election in the year following the year in which the disaster occurs. In the following year they must either reduce the rate to the rollback rate or hold an election to maintain the higher rate.* * AG opinion pending (512) 472-8838

Ratification ( Rollback ) Elections (cont.) Rollback Rate Equals the Lesser of: 1. $1.50 x compression percentage (66.67%) + $0.04 + voter approved pennies + debt rate 2. Effective rate + $0.06 x compression percentage (66.67%) + debt rate Effective rate is the rate necessary to maintain the same amount of state and local M&O revenue per weighted student. (512) 472-8838

Ratification ( Rollback ) Elections (cont.) Year Number of Elections Number Successful Percent Successful 2007 119 93 78% 2008 116 70 60% 2009 42 26 62% Total 277 189 68%

M&O Tax Rates (2009 Tax Year) M&O Rate Number of Districts Percent of Districts Above $1.17 3 0% $1.17 181 18% $1.05 - $1.16 48 5% $1.04 684 67% $1.01 - $1.03 41 4% $1.00 12 1% Below $1.00 56 5% Total 1,025 100%