Source: http://docplayer.net/18202101-Lsc-redbook-analysis-of-the-executive-budget-proposal-department-of-education.html
Timestamp: 2018-11-17 21:03:47
Document Index: 240385796

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 4']

LSC Redbook. Analysis of the Executive Budget Proposal. Department of Education - PDF
Download "LSC Redbook. Analysis of the Executive Budget Proposal. Department of Education"
1 LSC Redbook Analysis of the Executive Budget Proposal Department of Education Emily W. H. Gephart, Budget Analyst Andrew Plagenz, Budget Analyst Edward M. Millane, Budget Analyst Legislative Service Commission March 2009
2 READER'S GUIDE The Legislative Service Commission prepares an analysis of the executive budget proposal for each agency. These analyses are commonly called ʺRedbooks.ʺ This brief introduction is intended to help readers navigate the Redbook for the Department of Education (ODE), which includes the following five sections. 1. Overview: Provides a brief description of ODE and an overview of the provisions of the executive budget that affect ODE, including major new initiatives. 2. Facts and Figures: Provides some additional data on Ohioʹs primary and secondary education system Analysis of Executive Proposal: Provides a detailed analysis of the executive budget recommendations for ODE, including funding for each appropriation line item. The line items for ODE are organized into 12 categories. 4. School Funding Complete Resource: Provides a detailed analysis of the current system of funding public schools in Ohio, including state, local, and federal revenues. 5. Attachments: Includes the Catalog of Budget Line Items (COBLI) for ODE, which briefly describes each line item, and the LSC budget spreadsheet for ODE. 1 Much of this information is also presented in the LSC publication Ohio Facts that is available on the LSC web site:
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW... 1 Agency Overview... 1 Staffing Levels... 2 Appropriation Overview... 2 Appropriations by Fund Group... 2 Appropriations by Object of Expense... 4 Primary and Secondary Educationʹs Share of the State GRF Budget... 4 Lottery Profits and State Spending on Education... 5 School Funding Formula Changes... 6 Adequacy Amount... 6 Average Daily Membership... 7 All Day Kindergarten Funding... 8 Ohio Instructional Quality Index... 8 Organizational Units Instructional Services Support Additional Services Support Administrative Services Support Operations and Maintenance Support Gifted Education and Enrichment Support Technology Resources Support Additional Funding Components Adequacy Amount Summary Local Share of the Adequacy Amount Transportation Transitional Aid Total School District State Aid Growth Cap Community Schools STEM Schools Accounting for and Reporting Expenditures Future Model Adjustments Joint Vocational School District Funding Conversion Levies Formula Phantom Revenue Reappraisal Phantom Revenue Other Major Budget Issues Cleveland Municipal School District Early Adopter Project Extended School Year All Day Kindergarten Community Engagement... 36
4 Educator Quality Standards and Accountability Early Childhood Education The Ohio State School for the Blind and the Ohio School for the Deaf FACTS AND FIGURES Ohioʹs Per Pupil Operating Expenditures Compared to the National Average Ohioʹs Teacher Salaries Compared to the National Average Breakdown of School District Spending by Object of Expense Per Pupil Operating Spending By District Comparison Group Per Pupil Operating Revenue for Schools Average Per Pupil Valuation by District Wealth Funding for State Defined Basic Education by Wealth Quintile Funding for Enhancement Revenue by Wealth Quintile Comparison of Interdistrict Equity Based on Wealth Quintile School Choice Program Spending Ohio Schools Show Improvement on Report Card Ratings Changes in Public and Nonpublic School Enrollments Percentage of Ohio High School Graduates Going Directly to College ANALYSIS OF EXECUTIVE PROPOSAL Introduction Basic Public School Support Foundation Funding (200455, , , , , and ) Pupil Transportation (200502) Career Technical Education Grants ( and ) Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (200680) ESEA Title I (200623) Half Mill Maintenance Equalization (200626) Property Tax Reimbursements Property Tax Allocation Education (200901) School District Property Tax Replacement Business (200909) School District Property Tax Replacement Utility (200900) Educational Enhancements Special Education Enhancements (200540) Career Technical Education Enhancements (200545) Ohio Career Information System (200656) Tech Prep Consortia Support (200425) Education of Exceptional Children (200624) Career Technical Education Federal Enhancements (200616) School Medicaid Administrative Claims (200603) Innovative Education (200678) Education Technology (200641)... 77
5 Rural and Low Income Technical Assistance (200639) Educationally Disadvantaged Programs (200601) Nonpublic School Support Auxiliary Services (200511) Nonpublic Administrative Cost Reimbursement (200532) Auxiliary Services Reimbursement (200659) School Operations Support School Management Assistance (200422) Ohio Educational Computer Network (200426) Bus Purchase Allowance (200503) School Lunches ( and ) School District Solvency Assistance (200687) Federal School Breakfast (200618) Child/Adult Food Programs (200619) Public Charter Schools (200613) School Food Services (200607) Commodity Foods (200608) Academic Achievement Alternative Education Programs (200421) School Improvement Initiatives (200431) STEM Initiatives (200457) Violence Prevention and School Safety (200578) Learn and Serve (200660) School Improvement Grants (200671) Improving Health & Education Outcomes of Young People (200698) Character Education (200636) Foreign Language Assistance (200644) Drug Free Schools (200664) st Century Community Learning Centers (200688) Reading First (200632) English Language Acquisition (200689) NGA STEM (200911) Early Childhood Education Early Childhood Education (200408) Child Care Licensing (200442) Early Childhood Education (200661) Head Start Collaboration Project (200605) Early Learning Initiative (200663) Adult Education GED Testing (200447) Veteransʹ Training (200614)... 95
6 Guidance and Testing (200610) Educator Quality Educator Preparation (200448) Teach Ohio (200555) Teacher Certification and Licensure (200681) Troops to Teachers (200647) Teacher Incentive Fund (200646) Honors Scholarship Program (200667) Improving Teacher Quality (200635) State Action for Education Leadership (200696) Curriculum, Assessment, and Accountability Policy Analysis (200424) Academic Standards (200427) Student Assessment ( and ) Accountability/Report Cards (200439) Education Management Information System (200446) Longitudinal Data Systems (200628) National Education Statistics (200685) Ohio State School for the Blind and Ohio School for the Deaf OSD Operating Expenses (221100, , and ) OSB Operating Expenses (226100, , and ) Education Reform Grants OSD and OSB ( and ) Coordinating Unit OSD and OSB ( and ) VREAL Ohio (221604) Medicaid Services Reimbursement OSD and OSB ( and ) Early Childhood Grant (221686) Work Study & Donations OSD and OSB ( and ) Preschool Program Support (221609) State Administration Personal Services (200100) Maintenance and Equipment (200320) Computer/Application/Network Development (200420) Computer Services Operational Support (200606) Miscellaneous Educational Services (200638) Consolidated Federal Grant Administration (200645) General Supervisory Enhancement Grant (200697) Educational Improvement Grants (200615) Indirect Operational Support (200695) Interagency Operational Support (200633)
7 SCHOOL FUNDING COMPLETE RESOURCE ATTACHMENTS: Catalog of Budget Line Items Budget Spreadsheet By Line Item
8 Department of Education Overview Department of Education OVERVIEW Adopts new school funding model Recommends adoption of new standards and assessments Revises teacher licensure Provides increases of 2.3% in FY 2010 and 3.1% in FY 2011 in GRF and lottery spending Agency Overview ODE oversees a public education system consisting of 613 public school districts, 49 joint vocational school districts, and approximately 328 public community schools. This system enrolls approximately 1.8 million students in grades kindergarten through twelve and graduates approximately 125,000 students each year. In addition, ODE monitors 58 educational service centers, other regional education providers, several early learning programs, and approximately 867 state chartered nonpublic schools. ODE also administers the school funding system, collects school fiscal and performance data, develops academic standards and model curricula, administers the state achievement tests, issues district and school report cards, administers Ohioʹs voucher programs, provides professional development, and licenses teachers, administrators, treasurers, superintendents, and other education personnel. ODE is governed by a 19 member State Board of Education. Eleven of those 19 members are elected by the citizens of Ohio and the other eight members are appointed by the Governor. The Superintendent of Public Instruction, who is hired by the State Board of Education, is responsible for ODEʹs day to day operation. According to ODEʹs strategic plan, its vision is higher achievement for all students. Its mission is threefold, with 11 strategies designed to help ODE reach each mission. The core work of ODE is aligned closely with these missions and strategies, which are listed below. 1. Raise expectations: Set clear and high expectations for what all students should know and be able to do. a. Raise awareness, create understanding, and generate support for what students should know and be able to do. b. Promote the alignment of what we expect of students with what is taught and tested. 2. Build capacity: Provide leadership and resources to build the capacity of schools. Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 1
9 Overview Department of Education a. Provide regional, school, and district leadership with the support needed to sustain academic improvement. b. Ensure that every school and classroom has educators who meet highquality standards. c. Promote the effective use of current resources and advocate for the resources needed to improve student achievement. d. Identify and promote educational practices that lead to improved student achievement. e. Ensure that the work of regional service providers focuses on Ohioʹs standards based educational system. f. Promote high quality educational options that lead to improved student achievement. 3. Improve results: Measure progress and hold educators and students responsible for higher academic achievement. a. Develop fair state tests aligned with academic content standards. b. Promote the use of data to make decisions about teaching and learning. c. Develop and implement a fair accountability system that reports results and rewards successes. Staffing Levels As of February 13, 2009, ODE has 619 full time equivalent (FTE) employees and 24 authorized posted vacancies. Current employment levels are 92 FTEs below the staff ceiling established by the Office of Budget and Management. Generally, agencies operate below their staff ceilings due to a natural attrition rate that results in a certain number of vacancies at any given time. Appropriation Overview Appropriations by Fund Group The executive budget provides a total appropriation of $11.89 billion in FY 2010 and $12.17 billion in FY 2011 for ODE. Chart 1 and Table 1 present the executive recommended appropriations by fund group. As the chart shows, appropriations from the GRF and Lottery Profits Education Fund (LPE) make up a majority of ODEʹs funding for the biennium at 75.1%. Federal funds account for the next largest portion at 13.9%. Appropriations from the Revenue Distribution Fund group (RDF), which provide direct reimbursements to school districts and joint vocational school districts for property tax losses due to utility deregulation and the phase out of the business tangible personal property tax, accounts for 10.3% of ODEʹs funding for the biennium. Page 2 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
10 Department of Education Overview The State Special Revenue Fund group and the General Services Fund group account for the remaining 0.7%. Chart 1: Biennial Executive Budget Recommendations by Fund Group, FY 2010-FY 2011 GRF 69.2% GSF 0.3% FED 13.9% SSR 0.4% RDF 10.3% LPE 5.9% Table 1. Executive Budget Recommendations by Fund Group, FY 2010-FY 2011 Fund Group FY 2009* FY 2010 % change, FY 2009-FY 2010 FY 2011 % change, FY 2010-FY 2011 General Revenue $8,030,441,057 $8,190,075, % $8,464,046, % General Services $33,565,838 $32,865,846 (2.1)% $32,865, % State Special Revenue $51,260,108 $50,598,878 (1.3)% $49,898,878 (1.4)% Federal Special Revenue $1,727,462,303 $1,672,960,767 (3.2)% $1,666,757,861 (0.4)% Lottery Profits $667,900,000 $705,000, % $711,000, % Revenue Distribution $854,440,342 $1,241,330, % $1,241,330, % TOTAL $11,365,069,648 $11,892,832, % $12,165,899, % GRF and Lottery $8,698,341,057 $8,895,075, % $9,175,046, % *FY 2009 figures represent adjusted appropriations. Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 3
11 Overview Department of Education Appropriations by Object of Expense Chart 2 shows the executive recommended appropriations by object of expense. More than 97% of ODEʹs budget is paid out as subsidies mainly to school districts and joint vocational school districts, but also to community schools, educational service centers, chartered nonpublic schools, and other education providers. Chart 2: Biennial Executive Budget Recommendations by Object of Expense, FY 2010-FY 2011 Personal Services 0.7% Subsidies 97.6% Purchased Services 0.9% Maintenance & Equipment 0.4% Other 0.4% ODE retains approximately $472.3 million (2.0%) of its total recommended budget for the biennium at the state level for personal services, purchased services, maintenance, and equipment spending. Personal services accounts for approximately $172.2 million (36.5%) of these funds expended at the state level. Primary and Secondary Education's Share of the State GRF Budget 2 The four major spending areas of the state budget are: primary and secondary education, 3 human services, higher education, and corrections. The executive GRF budget recommendations total $41.5 billion for the FY 2010 FY 2011 biennium. Chart 3 shows these recommendations broken down by the four major spending areas as well as spending allocated to local government funds and all other areas. Under the executive budget, spending on primary and secondary education continues to be the largest spending area at approximately 40.4% of the executive recommendations. The 2 For this section, the state GRF budget includes allocations from the General Revenue Fund (GRF), as well as from the local government funds (LGFs), and the Lottery Profits Education Fund (LPE) but does not include spending reimbursed by the federal government or federal stimulus funds. 3 For this section, primary and secondary education spending includes all GRF and LPE spending by ODE, the etech Ohio Commission, the School Facilities Commission, the Ohio State School for the Blind, and the Ohio School for the Deaf. Page 4 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
12 Department of Education Overview proportions for the other areas of spending are: 25.5% for human services, 13.1% for higher education, 9.0% for corrections, 5.2% for local government funds, and 6.9% for all other areas. Higher Education 13.1% Chart 3: State Spending by Program Area, FY 2010-FY 2011 Biennium Human Services 25.5% Corrections 9.0% Local Government Funds 5.2% Other 6.9% Primary & Secondary Education 40.4% Lottery Profits and State Spending on Education In 1973, voters amended the Ohio Constitution to allow the creation of the Ohio lottery. In 1987, voters approved an additional constitutional amendment that permanently earmarked lottery profits for education. Generally, lottery profits are combined with the GRF to provide foundation funding to schools in Ohio. Chart 4 shows the percentage of state GRF and LPE spending on primary and secondary education that comes from lottery profits. As can be seen from Chart 4, lottery profits have always been a relatively small percentage of this spending. After reaching a peak of 16.9% in FY 1991, this percentage has decreased to 7.4% in FY 2009, but is expected to increase to 8.5% by FY Since the 1990s, the annual dollar amount of lottery profits has fallen from a high of $718.7 million in FY 1999 to an estimated $667.9 million in FY 2009, a decrease of 7.1%. From FY 1988 to FY 2009, total state GRF and lottery spending on primary and secondary education increased by $5,532.4 million (160.7%). Of this growth, $232.3 million (4.2%) was provided by the lottery. The executive budget reflects estimated increases in lottery profits of $37.1 million in FY 2010 and $6.0 million in FY Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 5
13 Overview Department of Education Chart 4: Lottery Profits as a Percentage of Total State GRF and Lottery Spending for K-12 Education, FY 1988-FY % Percentage of Total State Education Spending 15% 10% 5% 0% School Funding Formula Changes The executive budget replaces the current school funding formula used to determine the amount and distribution of state operating funding to school districts with a new formula. The current school funding formula is described in detail in the ʺState Operating Revenueʺ chapter, which starts on page 9 of the special analysis section of this Redbook entitled ʺSchool Funding Complete Resource.ʺ The new formula proposed in the executive budget is described below. Adequacy Amount Fiscal Year The executive budget adapts the ʺevidence based modelʺ (EBM) to Ohio. A form of EBM has been adopted in Wyoming and Arkansas. The premise behind the model is to identify school based programs and educational strategies shown by research evidence to improve student learning and build a funding model that supports them. The proposal calls the total amount of funding calculated by the model for each district the adequacy amount for that district. Similar to the base cost amount in the current formula, districts are expected to contribute a certain percentage (expressed as millage) of their taxable property value to fund the adequacy amount this is the local share. The state then makes up the difference between the total adequacy amount and the local share. The adequacy amount does not include funding for pupil transportation, which is funded separately. The proposal adopts the State Board of Educationʹs recommended formula for funding transportation and uses the state share of the adequacy amount to distribute this funding to school districts. Under the current school funding formula, the model of the state defined basic education amount, which is roughly equivalent to the adequacy amount plus transportation under the proposal, is largely a student based calculation. In other words, funding for the components of the model are largely calculated by applying a Page 6 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
14 Department of Education Overview per student formula amount to the number of students in the district. The overall cost of the current model is driven by the base cost formula amount per pupil. The proposed model is also largely based on the number of students in a district, but there is no specific formula amount per pupil. Instead the overall cost of the proposed model is largely driven by the teacher compensation amount, which varies by district. This is the amount of funding allocated to each teacher funded in the model. The components of the adequacy amount include instructional services support, additional services support, administrative services support, operations and maintenance support, gifted education and enrichment support, technology resources support, a professional development factor, and an instructional materials factor. Average Daily Membership Average daily membership (ADM) is the measure of the number of students in each district. Current law related to ADM is covered on pages 14 to 15 of the special analysis, ʺSchool Funding Complete Resource.ʺ Under current law, all students are counted in the ADM of the district in which they reside. However, some students are educated outside of the district where they reside; for example, students attending a community school, students attending a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) school, students attending another district through open enrollment, students attending a college or university through a dual enrollment program, and students attending a nonpublic school through a state funded scholarship program. Under current law, funding for these students is transferred from the resident districtʹs state aid allocation to the educating school or district. Under the executive proposal, three of these types of students community school, some STEM school, and open enrollment students are no longer counted in the ADM of the district in which they reside. Instead, these three types of students are counted in the ADM of the district or school where they are educated. This means that community schools are funded directly under the executive proposal, instead of through a transfer as under current law. Funding for community schools is discussed in detail below. Two other changes made to the calculation of ADM for districts in the proposed formula concern the timing of the ADM counts. Under current law, there are two ADM counts each fiscal year, the first in October and the second in February. The ADM for the fiscal year is equal to 75% of the October count plus 25% of the February count. This second count in February was added to the calculation in FY The proposal goes back to using only one count per fiscal year the October count. Also, it bases the ADM for a fiscal year on the October count of the previous fiscal year. As this count is generally finalized by the time the next fiscal year begins, this provision may give districts greater stability in their state aid as that amount may not change significantly during a given fiscal year. An exception to this provision is given to districts for which the October count in the current fiscal year is more than 2% greater than the October Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 7
15 Overview Department of Education count in the previous fiscal year. For these districts, ADM is based on the October count of the current fiscal year. The current law adjustments to ADM that allow districts to count 20% of FTE students who are educated at a joint vocational school district or another district through a career technical education compact are not changed by the proposal. All Day Kindergarten Funding Another change in ADM made in the proposal has to do with the funding of kindergarten students. The current school funding formula counts each kindergarten student as 0.5 in ADM in recognition of the traditional half day kindergarten program required under current law. The current formula provides funding for all day kindergarten through poverty based assistance to districts whose poverty rates are greater than the state average. The proposal counts all kindergarten students as one in ADM regardless of whether they receive full day or half day services. The executive budget requires that all districts provide all day kindergarten by FY 2011, unless a district is granted a waiver by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Ohio Instructional Quality Index As stated previously, the cost of the proposed model is largely driven by teacher compensation. Under the model teacher compensation is different for each district and depends on the Ohio Instructional Quality Index (IQ index). The IQ index provides more funding in the formula to districts with low college attainment rates, low wealth, and high percentages of economically disadvantaged students. The IQ index was computed for each district by the administration, it ranges from 0.9 to A description of the three components of the index and how they are combined is given below. College Attainment Index Each districtʹs college attainment rate is measured as the percentage of the population living in the district that is age 25 or over who has at least a bachelorʹs degree. The index is calculated by dividing the rate for each district by the maximum rate (the rate for the district with the highest rate) and subtracting the result from one. The calculation of the college attainment index for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the College Attainment Index per School District College attainment index = 1 - (District's college attainment rate)/(maximum college attainment rate) Page 8 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
16 Department of Education Overview Wealth Index Each districtʹs wealth per pupil is measured as 75% of its recognized taxable property valuation plus 25% of the sum of the incomes of its residents, divided by its ADM. This is the same wealth measure that is used in the parity aid component of the current school funding formula. The wealth index of any district with wealth per pupil greater than $350,000 is set equal to zero. The wealth per pupil of each district identified by ODE as wealthy and suburban are averaged after removing the highest and lowest value. To this average is added one standard deviation and this becomes the ʺmaximum wealthʺ measure used in the index. The index is calculated by dividing the wealth per pupil for each district by the maximum wealth and subtracting the result from one. The calculation of the wealth index for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Wealth Index per School District If district's wealth per pupil > $350,000, then wealth index = 0 If district's wealth per pupil <= $350,000, then wealth index = 1 - (District's wealth per pupil)/("maximum wealth") Poverty Index Each districtʹs poverty rate is measured as the percentage of the economically disadvantaged students in the district as reported on the districtʹs local report card, referred to as the targeted poverty indicator in the proposed formula. The poverty index of any district with a poverty rate at the 99th percentile or above is set equal to one. For the remaining districts, the index is calculated by dividing the rate for each district by the rate for the district at the 99th percentile. The calculation of the poverty index for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Poverty Index per School District If district's poverty rate is at the 99th percentile or above, poverty index = 1 If district's poverty rate is below the 99th percentile, poverty index = (District's poverty rate)/(poverty rate of district at 99th percentile) Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 9
17 Overview Department of Education Summary Finally, these three indices are averaged. The resulting indices are scaled from 0.9 to 1.65 by dividing each districtʹs combined index by the maximum combined index, multiplying the result by 0.75 (the difference between 1.65 and 0.9) and adding 0.9. The calculation of the IQ index for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Instructional Quality Index per School District Combined index = Average of college attainment, wealth, and poverty indices IQ Index = (District's combined index)/(maximum combined index) x Organizational Units Some components of the proposed model, such as funding for principals, are allocated based on the number of ʺschoolsʺ in each district. Districts may have schools of very different sizes, so instead of using the number of actual schools, the model calculates the number of organizational units. This is a new factor created by the model that measures the number of ʺschoolsʺ in the district of a standard size. There are three types of organizational units: 1. elementary school grades kindergarten through five, with a standard size of 418; 2. middle school grades six through eight, with a standard size of 557; and 3. high school grades nine through twelve, with a standard size of 733. A district with less than 800 students total is termed a ʺsmall districtʺ and is considered to have one organizational unit regardless of the grade level breakdown of its students. The calculation of organizational units is summarized below. Calculation of School District Organizational Units If ADM < 800 students, then Total Organizational Units = 1 If ADM >= 800 students, then Elementary School Organizational Units = (ADM in grades K through 5)/418 Middle School Organizational Units = (ADM in grades 6 through 8)/557 High School Organizational Units = (ADM in grades 9 through 12)/733 Total Organizational Units = Elementary School + Middle School + High School Units Page 10 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
18 Department of Education Overview Instructional Services Support The bulk of the cost of the model lies in the instructional services support component. This component is made up of funding for eight types of teachers: core teachers, specialist teachers, career technical education teachers, lead teachers, special education teachers, special education teacher aides, teachers for limited English proficient students, and supplemental teachers. The number of each type of teacher funded in each district is calculated as described below. Once the total number of teachers of all types is determined for a district, this number is multiplied by the modelʹs assumed teacher compensation for the fiscal year to arrive at the total amount of the instructional services support for the district. Core Teachers Core teachers are teachers of English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, or foreign languages. The number of core teachers is driven by a student toteacher ratio of 15:1 for grades kindergarten through three, and 25:1 for grades four through twelve. The calculation of the number of core teachers for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Number of Core Teachers per School District For grades K through 3: Number of core teachers in each grade level = (ADM in the grade level)/15 For grades 4 through 12: Number of core teachers in each grade level = (ADM in the grade level)/25 Total number of core teachers = Sum of the number of core teachers in each grade level K through 12 Specialist Teachers Specialist teachers provide instruction in art, music, or physical education. They are funded at 20% of core teachers in grades kindergarten through eight plus 25% of core teachers in grades nine through twelve. The calculation of the number of specialist teachers for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Number of Specialist Teachers per School District Total number of specialist teachers = 0.2 x (Number of core teachers in grade levels K through 8) x (Number of core teachers in grade levels 9 through 12) Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 11
19 Overview Department of Education Career-Technical Teachers Career technical teachers provide instruction in career technical education. They are funded at 10% of core teachers for grades nine through twelve. The calculation of the number of career technical teachers for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Number of Career-Technical Teachers per School District Total number of career-technical teachers = 0.1 x (Number of core teachers in grade levels 9 through 12) Lead Teachers Lead teachers provide mentoring and coaching for new teachers. They are funded at one teacher per organizational unit. The calculation of the number of lead teachers for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Number of Lead Teachers per School District Total number of lead teachers = Total number of organizational units Special Education Teachers Special education teachers provide the extra time and attention needed to assist in the achievement of special education students. Special education teachers are funded using a 20:1 special education weighted student ADM to teacher ratio. To calculate the special education weighted student ADM, the model divides special education ADM into six categories based on the disability of the student. The ADM in each category is given a weight. The current school funding formula also provides weighted funding for special education based on the same six categories. The proposal modifies the weights applied to each category. Under current law, the weights have been subject to a phase in percentage of 90% since FY Under the proposal, the weights are also funded at 90% in FY 2010 and FY 2011, but this is in recognition of the existence of federal funding for special education. This federal funding is expected to account for the remaining 10% of the weights. The changes to the weights are summarized in the following table. Page 12 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
20 Department of Education Overview Special Education Weights under Current Law and Executive Proposal Category Current Law Weights Proposed Weights One Speech only Two Specific learning disabled, developmentally disabled, other health minor Three Hearing impaired, vision impaired, severe behavior disabled Four Orthopedically disabled, other health major Five Multi-disabled Six Autism, traumatic brain injury, both visually and hearing impaired The calculation of the special education weighted student ADM and the number of special education teachers for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Special Education Weighted Student ADM per School District Category 1 weighted ADM = (category 1 ADM) x Category 2 weighted ADM = (category 2 ADM) x Category 3 weighted ADM = (category 3 ADM) x Category 4 weighted ADM = (category 4 ADM) x Category 5 weighted ADM = (category 5 ADM) x Category 6 weighted ADM = (category 6 ADM) x Total special education weighted ADM = Sum of special education weighted ADM for categories 1 through 6 Calculation of the Number of Special Education Teachers per School District Total number of special education teachers = (Total special education weighted ADM)/20 Special Education Teacher Aides In addition to special education teachers, one special education teacher aide is funded for every two special education teachers. The calculation of the number of special education teacher aides for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Number of Special Education Teacher Aides per School District Total number of special education teacher aides = (Total number of special education teachers)/2 Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 13
21 Overview Department of Education Limited English Proficient (LEP) Teachers LEP teachers provide for the additional needs of LEP students. They are funded at one teacher per 100 LEP students. The number of LEP students used in the model is equal to the percent of LEP students as defined in federal law multiplied by the districtʹs ADM. The calculation of the number of LEP teachers for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Number of LEP Teachers per School District Total number of LEP teachers = (LEP percentage x ADM)/100 Supplemental Teachers Supplemental teachers are funded for students who need additional instructional assistance and to provide assistance with extended day instruction. They are funded at one tutor per 100 economically disadvantaged students. The number of economically disadvantaged students used in the model is equal to the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the district as reported on the districtʹs local report card (the targeted poverty indicator) multiplied by the districtʹs ADM. The calculation of the number of supplemental teachers for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Number of Supplemental Teachers per School District Total number of supplemental teachers = (Economically disadvantaged percentage x ADM)/100 Teacher Compensation Teacher compensation refers to the amount allocated in a given fiscal year by the model to a specific district for each teacher (including teachers of all eight types described above) calculated by the model. This number is different for each district. It is calculated by multiplying the ʺstatewide base teacher salaryʺ by the IQ index. The IQ index is a centerpiece of the proposed model and is described in more detail above. The statewide base teacher salary is equal to $51,407 in FY 2010 and $52,402 in FY The IQ index ranges from 0.9 to 1.65, so in FY 2010, teacher compensation ranges from $46,233 ($51,407 x 0.9) to $84,822 ($51,407 x 1.65); in FY 2011, teacher compensation ranges from $47,162 ($52,402 x 0.9) to $86,463 ($52,402 x 1.65). The calculation of teacher compensation for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of Teacher Compensation per School District FY 2010 Teacher compensation = $51,407 x district's IQ index FY 2011 Teacher compensation = $52,402 x district's IQ index Page 14 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
22 Department of Education Overview Summary Finally, the total instructional services support component of the model is calculated by adding up the total number of teachers and multiplying this number by the teacher compensation for the district. This calculation is summarized below. Calculation of Instructional Services Support per School District Core teacher factor = Number of core teachers x Teacher compensation Specialist teacher factor = Number of specialist teachers x Teacher compensation Career-technical teacher factor = Number of career-technical teachers x Teacher compensation Lead teacher factor = Number of lead teachers x Teacher compensation Special education teacher factor = Number of special education teachers x Teacher compensation Special education teacher aide factor = Number of special education teacher aides x Teacher compensation LEP teacher factor = Number of LEP teachers x Teacher compensation Supplemental teacher factor = Number of supplemental teachers x Teacher compensation Instructional services support = Sum of eight teacher factors Additional Services Support The second component of the model is additional services support. This component is made up of funding for five services: student support staff, counselors, summer remediation programs, school nurses, and registered nurses. The funding for each of these services is calculated as described below. Student Support Staff Student support staff may include family liaisons, student advocates, and social workers. These staff provide additional support for at risk students. They are funded at one staff person per 75 economically disadvantaged students. As with the supplemental teacher factor, the number of economically disadvantaged students used in the model is equal to the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the district as reported on the districtʹs local report card (the targeted poverty indicator) multiplied by the districtʹs ADM. The model provides funding for each staff person equal to $38,633 in FY 2010 and $39,381 in FY The calculation of the student support staff factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Student Support Staff Factor per School District Total number of student support staff = (Economically disadvantaged percentage x ADM)/75 FY 2010 Student support staff factor = (Total number of student support staff in FY 2010) x $38,633 FY 2011 Student support staff factor = (Total number of student support staff in FY 2011) x $39,381 Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 15
23 Overview Department of Education Counselors The model funds one counselor for every 250 students in grades six through twelve. The model provides funding for each counselor equal to $66,375 in FY 2010 and $67,660 in FY The calculation of the counselor factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Counselor Factor per School District Total number of counselors = (Sum of ADM in grades 6 through 12)/250 FY 2010 Counselor factor = (Total number of counselors in FY 2010) x $66,375 FY 2011 Counselor factor = (Total number of counselors in FY 2011) x $67,660 Summer Remediation Program Funding is provided for a summer remediation program for at risk students. The model calculates the number of teachers needed for the program by providing for a 30:1 student to teacher ratio and assuming attendance equal to 50% of the economically disadvantaged students in the district. The model provides funding for each summer teacher equal to $3,000 in both FY 2010 and FY As with the supplemental teacher and the student support staff factor, the number of economically disadvantaged students used in the model is equal to the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the district as reported on the districtʹs local report card (the targeted poverty indicator) multiplied by the districtʹs ADM. The calculation of the summer remediation program factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Summer Remediation Program Factor per School District Total number of teachers = 0.5 x (Economically disadvantaged percentage x ADM)/30 FY 2010 Summer remediation program factor = (Total number of teachers in FY 2010) x $3,000 FY 2011 Summer remediation program factor = (Total number of teachers in FY 2011) x $3,000 Page 16 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
24 Department of Education Overview School Nurses One school nurse is funded per organizational unit, except that small districts (districts with less than 800 students) do not receive funding for a school nurse. The model provides funding for each school nurse equal to $28,009 in FY 2010 and $28,551 in FY The calculation of the school nurse factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the School Nurse Factor per School District If district ADM < 800, then school nurse factor = 0 If district ADM => 800, then Total number of school nurses = Number of organizational units FY 2010 School nurse factor = (Total number of school nurses in FY 2010) x $28,009 FY 2011 School nurse factor = (Total number of school nurses in FY 2011) x $28,551 Registered Nurses One registered nurse is funded per district. The model provides funding for each registered nurse equal to $51,407 in FY 2010 and $52,402 in FY This is the same as the statewide average teacher salary base for those years. The calculation of the registered nurse factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Registered Nurse Factor per School District FY 2010 Registered nurse factor = $51,407 FY 2011 Registered nurse factor = $52,402 Summary The total additional services support component of the model is calculated by adding up the five factors. This calculation is summarized below. Calculation of Additional Services Support per School District Additional services support = Student support staff factor + Counselor factor + Summer remediation program factor + School nurse factor + Registered nurse factor Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 17
25 Overview Department of Education Administrative Services Support The third component of the model is administrative services support. This component is made up of funding for six types of administrative staff: superintendents, treasurers, principals, noninstructional aides, building managers, and secretaries. Funding for two of these staff types, superintendents and treasurers, is phased in at 25% for this biennium. The funding for each of these staff persons is calculated as described below. Superintendent One superintendent per district is funded. The model provides funding for each superintendent equal to $108,758 in FY 2010 and $110,864 in FY 2011, but this funding is phased in at 25% for the FY 2010 FY 2011 biennium. The calculation of the superintendent factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Superintendent Factor per School District FY 2010 Superintendent factor = $108,758 x 0.25 = $27,189 FY 2011 Superintendent factor = $110,864 x 0.25 = $27,716 Treasurer One treasurer per district is funded. The model provides funding for each treasurer equal to $78,418 in FY 2010 and $79,937 in FY 2011, but this funding is phased in at 25% for the FY biennium. The calculation of the treasurer factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Treasurer Factor per School District FY 2010 Treasurer factor = $78,418 x 0.25 = $19,605 FY 2011 Treasurer factor = $79,937 x 0.25 = $19,984 Principal One principal per organizational unit is funded. The model provides funding for each principal equal to $89,563 in FY 2010 and $91,297 in FY The calculation of the principal factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Principal Factor per School District Total number of principals = Number of organizational units FY 2010 Principal factor = (Total number of principals in FY 2010) x $89,563 FY 2011 Principal factor = (Total number of principals in FY 2011) x $91,297 Page 18 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
26 Department of Education Overview Noninstructional Aides Noninstructional aides assist in activities such as bus loading and recess supervision. They are funded at two per elementary school and middle school organizational units and three per high school organizational unit, except that small districts (districts with less than 800 students) are funded at a total of one noninstructional aide. The model provides funding for each noninstructional aide equal to $19,966 in FY 2010 and $20,353 in FY The calculation of the noninstructional aide factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Noninstructional Aide Factor per School District If district ADM < 800, then number of noninstructional aides = 1 If district ADM => 800, then number of noninstructional aides = (Sum of elementary and middle school organizational units) x 2 + (High school organizational units) x 3 FY 2010 Noninstructional aide factor = (Total number of noninstructional aides in FY 2010) x $19,966 FY 2011 Noninstructional aide factor = (Total number of noninstructional aides in FY 2011) x $20,353 Building Managers Building managers are funded at one per organizational unit. The model provides funding for each building manager equal to $33,624 in FY 2010 and $34,275 in FY The calculation of the building manager factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Building Manager Factor per School District Number of building managers = Number of organizational units FY 2010 Building manager factor = (Number of building managers in FY 2010) x $33,624 FY 2011 Building manager factor = (Number of building managers in FY 2011) x $34,275 Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 19
27 Overview Department of Education Secretaries One secretary is funded per elementary and middle school organizational units, and three per high school organizational unit, except that small districts (districts with less than 800 students) are funded at a total of one secretary. The model provides funding for each secretary equal to $33,624 in FY 2010 and $34,275 in FY This is the same as the funding provided for each building manager. The calculation of the secretary factor for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of the Secretary Factor per School District If district ADM < 800, then number of secretaries = 1 If district ADM => 800, then number of secretaries = (Sum of elementary and middle school organizational units) + (High school organizational units) x 3 FY 2010 Secretary factor = (Number of secretaries in FY 2010) x $33,624 FY 2011 Secretary factor = (Number of secretaries in FY 2011) x $34,275 Summary The total administrative services support component of the model is calculated by adding up the six factors. This calculation is summarized below. Calculation of Administrative Services Support per School District Administrative services support = Superintendent factor + Treasurer factor + Principal factor + Noninstructional aide factor + Building manager factor + Secretary factor Operations and Maintenance Support The fourth component of the model is operations and maintenance support. This component is funded at $902 per student, but is phased in at 25% for the FY 2010 FY 2011 biennium. The calculation of operations and maintenance support for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of Operations and Maintenance Support per School District FY 2010 Operations and maintenance support = ($902 x 0.25) x (FY 2010 ADM) = $226 x (FY 2010 ADM) FY 2011 Operations and maintenance support = ($902 x 0.25) x (FY 2011 ADM) = $226 x (FY 2011 ADM) Page 20 Redbook Legislative Service Commission
28 Department of Education Overview Gifted Education and Enrichment Support The fifth component of the model is gifted education and enrichment support. This component is made up of funding for two services: gifted education support and enrichment support. The funding for each of these services is calculated as described below. Gifted Education Support Funding is provided at $25 per student in FY 2010 and FY The executive proposal also stipulates that this funding must be used to provide instruction, activities, materials, and supplies for gifted students. The calculation of gifted education support for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of Gifted Education Support per School District FY 2010 Gifted education support = $25 x (FY 2010 ADM) FY 2011 Gifted education support = $25 x (FY 2011 ADM) Enrichment Support Funding of $200 per student is provided for student enrichment activities, except that this funding is phased in at 25% for the FY 2010 FY 2011 biennium. The calculation of enrichment support for each school district is summarized below. Calculation of Enrichment Support per School District FY 2010 Enrichment support = ($200 x 0.25) x (FY 2010 ADM) = $50 x (FY 2010 ADM) FY 2011 Enrichment support = ($200 x 0.25) x (FY 2011 ADM) = $50 x (FY 2011 ADM) Summary The total gifted education and enrichment support component of the model is calculated by adding up the two factors. This calculation is summarized below. Calculation of Gifted Education and Enrichment Support per School District Gifted education and enrichment support = Gifted education support + Enrichment support Technology Resources Support The sixth component of the model is technology resources support. This component is made up of funding for two services: media services and technology equipment. The funding for each of these services is calculated as described below. Legislative Service Commission Redbook Page 21