School Finance Partnership Beyond the Base: Adjusting for Unique District and Student Needs

1. School Finance PartnershipBeyond the Base: Adjusting for Unique District and Student Needs Mary Wickersham, Colorado Children’s Campaign

2. Evolution of Colorado’s school funding • Colorado’s first comprehensive school finance formula was written in 1952. • The many different versions up until the current 1994 version focused primarily on two things: tax equity and establishing an equal amount per student of state aid.

3. Colorado’s per pupil funding today • Base funding amount • Adjustments (weights, factors) • District characteristics—buying power • Cost of Living • Size • Student characteristics—vertical equity • At risk • Categoricals

4. Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

5. Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

6. Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

7. Changes in Colorado student populations Source: Colorado School Finance Project

8. Budget cuts eliminated equity-based differentiation (weights) Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

9. Equity in school finance formulas • Horizontal equity • Equal treatment of equals • Fiscal neutrality • Vertical equity • Unequal treatment of unequals • Additional resources for students with additional educational needs.

10. Foundation Programs (39) (38) PositionAllocation Systems (6) (6) Other (5) (6) School Funding Formulas Source: Education Commission of the States

11. Approaches to weights • District characteristics • Student characteristics • Programs/priorities

12. Regional cost adjustment • Represents the differential costs of attracting and retaining quality personnel. • Cost of living • Market basket of goods and services • Comparative wage index • NCES developed a Comparative Wage Index for all districts nationally in 2006. • Hedonic wage index • Method that most fully considers non-financial factors that influence choice of location for education personnel.

13. Enrollment / location • Meant to provide additional funds to address diseconomies of scale • Taken into account by CO school finance formulas since 1952 • Used in approximately 29 states • Multiple measures: • Enrollment • Geographic size • Population density • Distance from next school • Geographic barrier • Certain methods may provide disincentives for consolidation.

14. Grade level • Based on the idea that the cost of educating students is not the same at every grade level. • State or district policies to limit class size for early grades can increase the costs of those years. • Expanded curriculum offerings and facility needs can drive costs in secondary schools. • Currently, 21 states include adjustments for grade level.

15. Other examples • Adjustments made for teacher experience (8 states) • Districts with higher levels of teacher experience receive additional funding. • Adjustments made for district academic performance (4 states). • Schools or districts with low student performance receive additional weights. In each case, the additional amount of funding is required to be used in the low-performing schools.

16. Special Education • Many states including Colorado include special education funding as a categorical program, other states include a weight for special education. • The formulas for special education vary greatly across states. • Flat rate • Tiered funding • SFP subcommittee to examine Special Education funding options.

17. At risk • Adjustment meant to capture the additional costs associated with programs and interventions to aid students who are at risk of failing or dropping out. • Identifying at risk students • Poverty: In addition to Colorado, 30 states provide a weight in their school finance formula for at-risk students measured by high poverty. • Free and reduced lunch • Percentage of children living in poverty • TANF eligible • Participation in federal food stamp program

18. At risk—cont. • Mobility: correlated with both risk of academic failure and poverty • Academically at risk: • Afew states do have included students who are academically behind in the at risk count: Georgia, Kansas, Virginia, Alabama, Ohio. • Considered as a part of the development of the 1994 School Finance Act, but abandoned due to the lack of consistent, comparable data on student achievement statewide (before CSAPs).

19. Limited English proficiency • Most states provide additional funding for students with limited English proficiency (also called English language learners (ELL)) • 32 states, the most common among student characteristics • Identifying at risk students • Poverty: In addition to Colorado, 30 states provide a weight in their school finance formula for at-risk students measured by high poverty. • Free and reduced lunch • Percentage of children living in poverty • TANF eligible • Participation in federal food stamp program

20. Weights for programs • Colorado has consistently tried to address with weights in the school finance act only those factors that are outside a district’s control. • Examples • Gifted and talented • Career and technical education • AP/IB enrollment or performance

21. How do you determine the size of the adjustment?

22. Spending flexibility • The vast majority of marginal funding increases provided by weights in school funding formulas is not restricted in its use. • One recent study looked at 218 adjustments in 48 states and found spending restriction applied to only 40.