School Apportionment Hot Topics

1. School Apportionment Hot Topics WASBO - 2011

2. Legislative Topics • High Poverty Class Size • Hold Harmless • June 30th. • National Board Bonus • Safety Net Funds • K-4 Elimination • LEA – Untouched!?!? • Average Daily Attendance • Full Day Kindergarten • Salaries • Freeze vs. • 3% cuts

3. K-4 Class Size • Both budgets eliminate this funding • Savings $162.7M for staffing and $23.9M from reduced MSOC.

4. Proposed Changes for Prototype • K-3 smaller class size for high poverty schools. • Minor revisions made for CTE and Skills Center to add units for classified and administrative staffing. • MSOC inflated by IPD to a higher value than in the budget.

5. Proposed Changes for Prototype • As expected, a change to the Admin factor and breakdown between CAS & CLS. • Hold Harmless for transition changes is being proposed.

6. LEA & LEVY • No proposed cuts by either House or Senate.(so far) • Two bills changing levy calculation proposed: • HB 1815 • HB 1814 • Levy & LEA Workgroup • Report Due June 30th.

7. HB 1815 SB 5652 Levy Base Revision • This bill would create another “ghost” amount in the calculation of the LEVY base to include per pupil reductions in funding since the 2009-10 school year. • This would apply towards the 2011 through 2017 levy calculations. • The base year for health benefits is 2010-11. • Bill reintroduced April 26th

8. HB 1814 SB 5651 EduJobs in Levy Base • This bill would add the Edu-Jobs funding into the levy base for the 2011 and 2012 Levy calculations for district that approved levy prior to April 30th, 2011. • Effectively double counts Edu-Jobs $$ in the 2011 levy base. • Reintroduced April 26th.

9. Average Daily Attendance • Initially proposed in Senate Budget • Proposal dropped. • Would have required reductions in the Student FTE based upon a district’s unexcused absence rate before calculation of state funding. • Would have recognized $92.4M in savings. • Depreciation dollars shifted to make up savings.

10. FDK – House Proposal • House funding level increased to 21%. • Eligibility is based upon a three year measure of school poverty. • Law states once eligible always eligible. • These changes do not represent much of a change in current programs. Due to growth the original crop of schools under 20% now serve 20.78%. • Change affects future school site entrants into FDK.

11. House Salary Proposal • No funded salary increases will be provided for experience or education after the 2010-11 S-275 reporting. • Salary compliance was not repealed. • OSPI dilemma - How to implement?? To report or not to report?

12. Senate Salary Proposal • Reduce funded salary 3% • Easy for OSPI to implement. • Will districts have to reduce CIS base in contracts? • Salary compliance was not repealed. • Provides $5M annually to ensure that employees being paid less than $30,000 on a 1.0 FTE basis were not cut. ($15 hour) • Savings $212.9M

13. High Poverty Class-Size for K-3 • Both the House and Senate propose an enhancement to K-3 class-size for high poverty schools. • Both define as greater than 50% based upon a three year measure. • House reduces to 24.23 and labels this “basic ed.” $25M • Senate reduces to 22.75 but does not consider this basic ed. $64.3M

14. Hold Harmless • The new LAP formula does not continue the high concentration / bilingual enhancement. • Resulting reduction is $24.5 Million. • FFTWG and QEC both recommended a hold harmless for this transition.

15. Hold Harmless – “In Total” • Both the House and Senate propose an aggregated hold harmless (HH) calculation. • This calculation combines the conversion changes in Basic Ed, Bilingual, Highly Capable, and LAP, and provides a HH as the net change. • HH funding is not considered LAP. • Would be paid under account 3100.

16. Hold Harmless • As proposed: The calculation for HH does not incorporate any changes for benefit rates. • The House includes the K-3 reduction in the calculation and the change in MSOC. Provides $19.2M • The Senate does not. And provides $41.5M

17. June 30th Proposed Payment Delay • A portion of the June 30th apportionment payment will be paid on July 1st(Friday). • Will not affect State and Federal grant Payments. • Limited loan funds available . • District must apply to be considered by May 25th. • Bill 1354 would allow up to $253M to be delayed at Governor’s discretion.

18. June 30th Loan Request • District must complete packet. • District must be current on all grant claims. • Districts must have borrowed all available funds from CPF, TVF funds. • Must submit a County Treasurer statement that the County is unable to help district with loan, interest bearing warrants or other mechanisms.

19. Bi-Monthly Payments • Discussion circulating on setting up bi-monthly apportionment payments. Bill expected to be introduced revising RCW 28A.510. • The bill would require half (??) of state apportionment would be paid on the 25th with the other half being paid on the 10th. • It is anticipated that OSPI would continue to make the payments of all federal and state grants on the 25th.

20. Bi-Monthly Payments • Expected to be tagged onto 1354. • As discussed this would not be enacted until the 2012-13 school year. • If enacted this would be forevermore.

21. National Board Bonus • Both Budgets: • Rates change for first year teachers to 60% of annual bonus. • Challenging schools?? • Available only for three years following initial NBCT certification. • To be paid annually only in July.

22. Safety Net Funds Both Budgets: • Shall only be paid in August at year end. • Current discussion focus on a single SNET meeting to consider applications in June. • District notification would target June 30th.

23. Various Other Areas Prototype - Planning Time ALE Running Start SAFS Rules Changes Systems

24. Prototype - Planning Time Factor Lots of confusion around the planning time factor in the budget. • The budgeted elementary factor of 13.42 % for planning time creates a increase factor for teachers of 1.155 • The budgeted middle and secondary planning time of 16.67% creates an increase factor for teachers of 1.20.

25. Planning Time Walk Through .

26. Alternative Learning Experience Programs Reduced Funding Revised Rules Audit Issues

27. ALE Legislative Changes • Both budgets propose cuts to ALE • House proposes funding at 80.1% • Senate proposes funding at 90% • Both budgets adopt a version of OSPI’s proposed rule change to prohibit direct payments to students & parents. • Senate saves $25.8M

28. ALE Legislative Changes • If enacted, how will the funding reduction appear on apportionment reports? • Where will student FTE come from?

29. ALE – Definition Review • ALE is not necessarily an alternative high school. • An alternative high school may have both seat-time and independent components. • ALE is independent learning time claimed for funding - subject to the rules under WAC 392-121-182.

30. ALE Rules - WAC 392-121-182 • These changes were performed independent of any legislative action. • Rule hearing was held April 26, 2011. • This rule change updates district requirements and responsibilities, defines the key terms related to ALE, and addresses a number of issues that were highlighted by the work group.

31. ALE Rules - WAC 392-121-182 • High-lited changes: • Prohibition of any payment, stipend or reimbursement to students or parents. • Districts must include students enrolled GT 0.80 FTE in assessment. • Stronger standards for direct personal contact between student and Teacher. • Approval of learning materials consistent with 28A.320.230. • Clearer language regarding required documentation.

32. ALE Audits • SAO has audited several large on-line/ALE programs. Audit reports are stating several recoveries above $1 million. • Typical errors are: • Failure to develop appropriate learning plan. • Failure to develop and document reasonable contact between teacher and student. • Lack of documentation for teacher performing monthly review of student progress. • These errors reflect a casual attitude about district/teacher responsibility for these programs.

33. Running Start Legislative and Contemporary Issues

34. Running Start Super FTE • Historically has been 2.0 FTE with a limitation of 1.0 at HS and 1.0 in College • Both budget bills reduce this overall to1.2 FTE. • Savings projected at $5.8M

35. Issue: Contracting for Running Start in the High School • Many comments received about contracting for Running Start in the high school. • One agreement shared with OSPI, requires school district staff to provide program staffing while the college gets 93% of funding. • The original 93% funding assumed program was provided on the college campus by college faculty. • Districts may negotiate with the college for reimbursement for district staff and facility usage. • Districts may refuse to provide program.

36. Rule Changes Key changes in 2010/11 • 392-140 – Principals may no longer receive NBCT bonus. • 392-137-115 – Defines student residence. • 392-126-075 – Shared leave between school districts. • 392-122 Education programs in Jails

37. S-275 System Changes • School Number – to be edited against. • New numbering being created for non-student locations for staff reporting. • Separate reporting for TRI contracts for innovative activities. • Duty code changes to better align to the Prototype staffing. • Freezing Staff Mix??

38. SAFS News Systems – F-203 • F-203 will be programmed and released after the legislature passes a budget. • Unfortunately, school district budget timelines may prompt action before this.

39. F-203X System Usage • F-203X has been available since January. • As of April 26th. 192 Districts have created 404 F-203X estimates. • Highest number of estimates for one district = 14. • Most optimistic named estimate - “Final Budget” • 103 have not created any estimate. This is concerning.