Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Overview v ew of K 12 Funding in Washington Calvin W. Brodie School Apportionment and Financial Services 6/2/2008 1
Note: Page numbers refer to the January 2006 Organization and Financing of Washington Public Schools, available at www.k12.wa.us/safs/pub/org/org.asp. Disclaimer: l i This is a simplified presentation on K 12 funding in Washington State for informational overview purposes only. Specific authoritative technical details are contained in statute and rules and may not be fully represented here.
Presentation Agenda School Governance and Statewide Perspective Apportionment Funding Other State Categorical Funding Local Levy Funding Federal Funding 6/2/2008 3
School Governance and Statewide Perspective 6/2/2008 4
School Governance I Legislative Branch State Legislature U.S. Congress Executive Branch Governor Supt. of Public Instruction State Auditor State Board of Education U.S. Department of Education Professional Educator Standards Board 6/2/2008 5
School Governance II State Superintendent of Public Instruction State Auditor Regional Nine Educational Service Districts pg. 28 Local 295 or 296? School Districts 6/2/2008 6
What is the State s Responsibility? Page 11 Washington State t Constitution Article IX Section 1. It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex. Section 2. The legislature shall provide a general and uniform system of public schools... and such... normal and technical schools as may hereafter be established. 6/2/2008 7
Washington s School lfinance System Is a legislative response to three court decisions interpreting the paramount duty clause of the state constitution. These court decisions describe the state s duty under the constitution. 1977 1983 1988 6/2/2008 8
Seattle Lawsuit - Doran I Page 21 After a levy failure in 1976, Seattle School District i t sued the state, t alleging that t the state t was not meeting its constitutional duty to make ample provision for education. On January 14, 1977, Judge Doran issued a declaratory judgment finding that: State funding was insufficient to fund a basic program of education; therefore, The Legislature must define and fully fund a program of basic education through regular and dependable d tax sources and must not rely on local excess levies for that funding. 6/2/2008 9
Doran II and IIB Decisions Subsequent decisions by Judge Doran expanded and clarified the state s t responsibility for basic education. The 1983 decision included the following categorical programs to the state s basic responsibilities: Special Education Bilingual Education Remediation (LAP) Pupil Transp. (some students) The 1988 decision: Supported state funding for special education based on averages. Concluded some form of safety net was needed to supplement special education funding for districts demonstrating need. 6/2/2008 10
Funding Principles The funding formula is not cast in concrete; it is the continuing obligation of the Legislature to review, define, and fund basic education. Local school levies may be allowed as long as: they enrich programs outside of the legislative definition of basic education and are not used to reduce the state s obligation to fund basic education. 6/2/2008 11
Contemporary Issues Lawsuits: Special education. K 12 adequacy. Equity. K-12 Funding Task Force: Recommendations due November 2008. 6/2/2008 12
2007-0909 Biennium State General Fund Revenues Page 6 (Dollars in Billions) Retail Sales & Use Tax $ 15.8 B & O Tax $ 5.6, Property Tax (State Share) $ 3.0 Real Estate Excise Tax $ 1.6 Property ( Public Utility Tax $ 0.7 All Other $ 3.2 Total $299 29.9 Real Estate Excise Tax, 5.4% Tax (State Share), 10. 0% Public Utility Tax, 2.3% B & O Tax, 18.7% All Other, 10.7 % Retail Sales & Use Tax, 52.8% Source: Economic and Revenue Forecast, November 2007 (Cash Basis), reprinted from A Citizen s Guide to the Washington State Budget, p. 10 6/2/2008 13
2007-0909 Bienniumi State General Fund Expenditures (Dollars in Billions) Public Schools $ 12.1 Human Services $ 11.0 Higher Education $ 3.3 3 Governmental Operations $ 0.9 Natural Resources $ 0.4 Debt Service/Other $ 1.9 Total $ 29.5 Governmental Operations, 3% Higher Education, 11% Natural Resources 1% Debt Service/Other 6% Public Schools 41% Human Services, 37% Citizens Guide to the Budget, page 12: http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/committees/wm/publications.htm wa gov/senate/committees/wm/publications htm Columns may not add up due to rounding. 6/2/2008 14
School District General Fund Revenue per Student 2006 07 School Year Average Revenue per Percent FTE Student State $6137 $6,137 70.1 Local Tax 1,484 16.9 Federal 808 9.2 Other 329 3.8 Total $8,758 100.0 Source: Summary of all School Districts F-196; 2006 0707 is the latest available year. 6/2/2008 15
State t Average School District i t Expenditures 2006 07 School Year Program Statewide (millions) Per Student Basic Ed. $4,518 $4,569 Special Ed. 900 810 Vocational/Skills Ctr. 293 297 Compensatory Ed. 842 852 Other Instruction 108 109 Community Service 45 46 District-wide Support 1,233 1,247 Food Services 299 302 Transportation 356 360 Total $8,594 $8692 Source: Summary of all School Districts F-196; 2006 07 is the latest available year. 6/2/2008 16
Apportionment Funding 6/2/2008 17
General Apportionment Basic Funding Concepts Enrollment Formula Staff Units (Teachers, Administrators, and Aides) Salaries &Benefits Nonemployee Related Costs (NERC) State General Apportionment Allocation 6/2/2008 18
Factor #1 Basic Education Enrollment page 52 Student FTE based on seat time. Grade K: 2 hours per day = 0.5 FTE Grades 1 3: 4 hours per day = 1.0 FTE Grades 4 12: 5 hours per day = 1.0 FTE Based on enrolled hours not attendance. Nine monthly count dates first t school day of each month. All day kindergarten is funded separately for up to 20% highest poverty buildings. Alternative Learning Experience, Work-based Learning, and Running Start provide exceptions to seat time FTE rule. 6/2/2008 19
Factor # 2 Legislative Staffing Ratios page 53 1,000 FTE students generate: 4.0 Certificated Administrative Staff (CAS) Superintendents, Principals etc. 46.0 Certificated Instructional Staff (CIS) Teachers, Program Supervisors. 16.74 Classified Staff (1 for every 59.75 FTE students) Business office, classroom aides. Enhanced staffing (per 1,000 FTEs): K 3 FTEs = 49.0 53.2 CIS (use it or lose it.) 4th grade = 46.0 53.2 CIS (use it or lose it.) 6/2/2008 20
Factor #3 Instructional Staff Salary Funding page 56 The state determines the funding provided to each certificated position based upon the experience and education level of the staff hired. This is captured in a staff mix factor. Districtwide average mix factor determines the state funding gprovided for each funded certificated staff position in the district. 6/2/2008 21
Staff Mix page 59 The staff mix factor is a five-decimal number between 1.00000 and approximately 2.00000 that quantifies the educational and experience level of instructional staff of the district. 1.00000 equals a new teacher with no experience. The highest staff mix, current is 1.88482, equals a teacher with a Ph.D. and 16 or more years of experience. 6/2/2008 22
Compensation Certificated staff are typically compensated as follows: Base Contract typically tied to state funding schedule. Supplemental Contracts for additional time, responsibilities, and incentives (TRI). The state assumes No responsibility for supplemental contracts. These are typically funded from local levy dollars. 6/2/2008 23
Why do some districts i t get more state t funding than others? Differences in base salary amounts. Different levels of staff experience and education. Different levels of students participating in: Bilingual Programs. Special Education. Vocational leducation. Transportation. Different levels of poverty affect LAP funding. Differences in levy equalization funding. 6/2/2008 24
2008 2009 General Apportionment Simplified Example 1,000 Students Staff Units and Salaries Total 46 certificated instructional staff (CIS) X 1.62777 X 32,746 = $ 2,451,936 46 CIS X 1.62777 X 34,426 - Maint = 125,794 4 certificated administrative staff (CAS) X 57,986 = 231,944 17 classified staff (CLS) X 31,865 = 541,705 Mandatory Benefits Maint: CIS & CAS - (0.1675 * (2,451,936 + 231,944)) = 449,550 Inc: CIS (0.1611 * (125,794 )) = 20,265 Maint: Classified - (0.1872 * 541,705) = 101,407 Inc: Classified - (0.1522 * 0) = Health Benefits 50 certificated staff X 12 months X $732.00 = 439,200 17 classified staff X 1.1515 X 12 months X $732.00 = 171,727727 Nonemployee Related Costs 50 certificated staff X $10,178 = 508,900 TOTAL ALLOCATION = $ 5,042,429 Per Student Allocation $ 5,042.43
General Apportionment Fiscal Accountability Must maintain K 12 ratio of 46/1000 (CIS-per-student). Must use K 4 enhancement for K 4 staffing (more K 4 funding for more K 4 staff, up to 53.2/1000 ratio). Must add 2 learning improvement days to 180-day base contract year CIS. Must not pay district average CIS base salary that exceeds district allocated salary rate (Salary Compliance). Must use state accounting and program structure. 6/2/2008 26
Other State Categorical Funding 6/2/2008 27
Special Education Funding - Page 68 2 categories: Birth to Kindergarten @ 115% of BEA Kindergarten through21 @ 93.09% of BEA Additional safety net funding provided. 6/2/2008 28
Learning Assistance Program (LAP) - Page 73 Purpose: to assist low achieving students. 2008 0909 Funding based on the sum of: District % of FRPL * FTE * $285.99 PLUS If District % of FRPL is > state average of 40%, then (District % of FRPL - 40 %) * FTE * $285.99. Funding may be spent on any grade. Typical service: LAP instructors provide one-on-one or small group instructional support. 6/2/2008 29
Bilingual Education - Page 74 Purpose: To assist limited English proficient (LEP) students. Funding is based on number of eligible students. 2008 09 funding: $904.37 per bilingual student. 6/2/2008 30
Highly Capable - Page 78 Purpose: To provide additional support for highly capable (gifted) students. Funding provided for 2.314% of total enrollment. 2008 09 funding: $406.69 per student. Money is used in a variety of ways for enriched programs. 6/2/2008 31
Local Levy Funding 6/2/2008 32
Local Levy Funding - Page 81 Local levies: Are for enhancements to basic education programs. Are calculated on a calendar year basis, not school year. Are sometimes called excess levies because the levy is in excess of the statutory 1 percent limit on property tax. Are also referred to as special levies because they require voter approval. Are not required. For 2008, 21 districts did not have a local levy. 6/2/2008 33
Local Levy Funding Prior to 1977, there was no limit on the amount that school districts could raise from local levies. In 1977, the Legislature passed the Levy Lid Act, which limited school district maintenance and operation (M&O) levies to 10% of a levy base and set a 4 year time limit for districts to get to 10%. Before all districts were reduced to 10%, the Legislature raised the lid to its current 24% of the levy base. Lid was last changed in 1999. Levy lid = Levy base X Levy authority % ± Transfers Maximum LEA 6/2/2008 34
The levy base is: Local Levy Funding - Page 81 Generally the total of the state and federal revenues a district received in the previous school year. 2006 07 revenues make up the 2008 base. One of the limiting i i factors for M&O levies and is multiplied by the levy authority %. Statewide average per student for 2007 collections was $1,497. 6/2/2008 35
Local Levy Funding - Page 83 Levy Authority (Lid) Percent - page 82 Statewide lid is 24%. Statewide average is 23.06%. 91 districts have grand-fathered levy authority percentages up to 33.9%. Transfers are made for nonhigh students residing in one school district but served by another district. 6/2/2008 36
Local llevy Funding Local Effort Assistance (LEA) - Page 72 LEA is state funding begun in 1989 to: Match excess general fund levies. Help school districts i t with above-average tax rates due to low property valuations. For calendar year 2006: 217 of the state s 295 districts received LEA allocations totaling $195 Million. 18 additional districts were eligible but failed to pass a levy. 6/2/2008 37
Local llevy Funding Local Effort Assistance (LEA) - Page 72 To qualify, districts must: Pass a levy. Have above average tax rates due to low property valuations per student. Have a levy rate per $1,000 based upon a 12% theoretical levy that exceeds the calculated state average rate required to collect a 12% levy. That rate is $1.197 per 1,000 for 2007 6/2/2008 38
Fd Federal Funding 6/2/2008 39
Federal Funding To Schools 2005 06 2005 06 School Year Revenues Dollars in Millions Percentage of Total School Food Services 159.9 20.2% Programs Under NCLB 334.2 42.2% IDEA Special Education, Supplemental 201.6 25.5% Medicaid Administrative Match 7.7 1.0% Special Purpose 31.1 3.9% Federal Forests 19.1 2.4% Head Start 15.3 1.9% Carl Perkins - Vocational Education 7.9 1.0% Special Education, Medicaid 5.5 0.7% Other Federal Revenues 55 5.5 07% 0.7% Skills Center, Youth Training Programs 1.1 0.1% Direct Federal Grants - General Purpose 29 2.9 04% 0.4% Total 791.8 100.0%
Federal Funding - Allocations Programs under NCLB: Title I, Part A, Basic; Part B, Reading First; Part C, Migrant. Title III, Limited English Proficient. Title VII, Indian Education. Title VIII, Federal Impact Aid. School Improvement multiple sections. Title I funds are allocated to districts in part based upon poverty factors obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. IDEA and Impact Aid are based upon specific student populations. School Food Service (USDA) funding is based upon free & reduced price eligibilities. Average October 2005 = 37.9%; October 2006 = 37.5%.
Want More Info? Please see the School Apportionment and Financial Services website at: http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/ 6/2/2008 42