1 / 15

Senate Bill 16 Overview October 2014

Senate Bill 16 Overview October 2014. ISBE Funding Principles. Adequacy —provides a level of funding sufficient for a high quality education. Simplicity —provides districts a predictable, understandable revenue stream that is used to maximize student outcomes.

cyrus-rosa
Download Presentation

Senate Bill 16 Overview October 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Senate Bill 16 Overview October 2014

  2. ISBE Funding Principles • Adequacy—provides a level of funding sufficient for a high quality education. • Simplicity—provides districts a predictable, understandable revenue stream that is used to maximize student outcomes. • Transparency—is easily accessed and understood by all citizens. • Equity—begins with everyone contributing a minimum tax rate and adjusts for student need by weighting the formula to allow for additional resources to address impediments to student achievement. • Outcome-focused –encourages student growth in learning.

  3. Senate Bill 16 – Equalized Funding

  4. Senate Bill 16 An education funding formula that provides additional weights for pupils with defined characteristics to arrive at a district budget from which available local resources are deducted. (Foundation Level (FL) x Combined Student Weight) x District ADA ) – Available Local Resources = Primary State Aid Primary State Aid is the greater of District Budget – Available Resources or a Flat Grant Amount (3.5% of FL). Hold Harmless Provisions: “Phase-In Period” Year 1 – A district will realize 25% of the Gain or Loss compared to the base year Year 2 – A district will realize 50% of the Gain or Loss compared to the base year Year 3 – A district will realize 75% of the Gain or Loss compared to the base year $1,000 Per Pupil Loss Cap No district will lose more than $1,000 per pupil as compared to the base year. This provision is indefinite. The model for Senate Bill 16 is based upon data from the 2011-2012 School Year and Fiscal Year 2013 Distributions.

  5. Senate Bill 16 Weightings

  6. What are the Characteristics of the Winners and Losers? Districts that Win • Average Low Income Concentration of 53% • Average Available Local Resource Per Pupil $3,309 Districts that Lose • Average Low Income Concentration of 28% • Average Available Local Resources Per Pupil $8,952

  7. Districts with Higher Student Need have less Available Local Resources

  8. PTELL Adjustment Why does the PTELL Adjustment Increase So Much even with an 80% PTELL EAV Floor? FY13 Gross GSA Claim PTELL Adjustment $502m SB 16 PTELL Adjustment $762m Increase $260m The GSA Foundation Formula Claim has three different funding levels: • Foundation Method 0% to <93% of the FL in ALR • Alternate Method 93% to <175% of the FL in ALR (5% to 7% of FL) • Flat Grant Method 175% and above of the FL in ALR ($218) SB16 Eliminates the 2nd funding level and the PTELL Adjustment is now: (Real EAV – PTELL EAV) x Assumed Rate

  9. PTELL Adjustment for CPSFY13 Gross General State Aid

  10. PTELL Adjustment for CPS Senate Bill 16

  11. PTELL Adjustment –Impact of 80% Floor- CPS

  12. Senate Bill 16 Oversight & Accountability • ISBE Support: Dedicated funding for ISBE staff & contractual services for ELL and Special Education oversight and support • Reporting: For each district, reporting of weights and funding attributable to those weights • District Plans: For districts required to complete a District Improvement Plan, budget submitted with the plan must demonstrate budgeting for strategies giving priorities to low-income, ELL, and special education students consistent with weighting • CPS School Allocations: Maintain the current SGSA requirement for $261M to be distributed to schools pursuant to an ISBE-approved plan • School Based Budgeting: Beginning in the second year of the law’s implementation, ISBE institutes a system for accounting for revenues and expenditures at the individual school level, which would highlight inequities that may exist within a school district.

  13. Senate Bill 16Review Committee & Adequacy Study • Primary State Aid Review Committee: Recommendations by January 31, 2017 addressing: • Relating funding to district accountability or accreditation status • Whether to include State CTE and special education transportation in the formula • Whether to account for municipal impact fees, TIF distributions, available fund balances, etc. in ALR calculation • Whether regionalization factors should be incorporated • Methods for reducing PTELL adjustments • Adequacy Study: Subject to funding, by no later than 1/31/19 ISBE is to contract for a study of the adequacy of education funding in the State.

  14. Senate Bill 16ISBE Identified Opportunities for Improvements Measurement of Available Local Resources • Assumed Rates • Tax Increment Financing Districts Distributions • Personal Property Replacement Tax Distributions • Elimination of the PTELL Adjustment High Cost Special Education Reimbursement • The original language in SB 16 placed reimbursement for private special education facilities at the same level as placements within district-run programs $1,000 Per Pupil Loss Cap • A phase out of the provision for a $1,000 Per Pupil Loss Cap Incentives • Creation of more unit districts as opposed to dual districts • Regional High Schools for rural areas of the state

More Related