school finance partnership beyond the base: adjusting for unique district and student needs

School Finance Partnership

Beyond the Base: Adjusting for Unique District and Student Needs

Mary Wickersham, Colorado Children’s Campaign

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.

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

Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

Changes in Colorado student populations

Source: Colorado School Finance Project

Budget cuts eliminated equity-based differentiation (weights)

Base Per Pupil

Funding

Cost of Living

SizeAt Risk

Base Per Pupil Funding

Cost of Liv-ing

Size

At Risk

Negative Fac-tor

Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

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.

School Funding Formulas

Foundation Programs (39) (38)Position Allocation Systems (6) (6)Other (5) (6)

Source: Education Commission of the States

Approaches to weights

•District characteristics

•Student characteristics

•Programs/priorities

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

At risk—cont.

•Mobility: correlated with both risk of academic failure and poverty

•Academically at risk:▫A few 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).

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

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

How do you determine the size of the adjustment?

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.