School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 32

School Finance in Arizona Chuck Essigs AASBO PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 126 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

School Finance in Arizona Chuck Essigs AASBO. Funding of Schools. 1900 - 1950 Very little state assistance Very little state control Ability to fund educational programs based upon wealth of community 1950 – Today Gradual increase in state assistance Gradual increase in state control

Download Presentation

School Finance in Arizona Chuck Essigs AASBO

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

School Finance in ArizonaChuck EssigsAASBO


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

Funding of Schools

  • 1900 - 1950

  • Very little state assistance

  • Very little state control

  • Ability to fund educational programs

    based upon wealth of community

  • 1950 – Today

    • Gradual increase in state assistance

    • Gradual increase in state control

    • Higher level of equity between school

      districts


How is the budget limit established revenue control limit rcl

How is the Budget Limit Established?Revenue Control Limit (RCL)

1.Regular ADM of the District

a. Preschool Handicapped

b. K-8 Students

c. 9-12 Students

2.Special Program Add-ons

a. Certain Handicapped Students

b. Limited English Learners (ELL)

c. K-3 Students

d. All K students

3.Teacher Experience Index

4.Pupil Transportation Program


2008 09 group a concept elementary and high school

2008-09 Group A ConceptElementary and High School

Basic Wt. Group A Wt.Total*

Elem. 1.000.158 1.158

$3,332 $526 $3,858

1.1630.105 1.268

H.S. $3,875 $350 $4,225

Regular education - special services:

Specific learning disability Emotional disability

Mild mental retardation Remedial education

Speech/language impairment Homebound

Other health impairment Bilingual

Preschool/speech lang. delay Gifted

Preschool/moderate delay Career Exploration

*Includes 1.25% for “Teacher Compensation”


Small school district funding weights 2008 09 school year

Small School District Funding Weights2008-09 School Year

Elementary High School

District Small Small

Size Isolated SmallIsolated Small

Over 600 $3,858 $3,858 $4,225 $4,225

500

400 increases up to

300

200

100$5,194 $4,560 $5,560 $5,194

*Isolated = no schools within 30 miles of another district or if road conditions and terrain make the driving slow or hazardous; 15 miles


Group b add on

Group B Add-On

CategoryWeightAmount

K 1.352 $4,505*

K-3 0.060 $200

English Learners 0.115 $383

Disabled StudentsRange from $10,502 to $25,711

Hearing Impaired, Multiple Disabilities, Physically Impaired, Moderate Mental Retardation, Severely Emotionally Disabled and Visual Impairment

* at 0.50 = $2,252


Group a concept

Group A Concept

Extra funding forExpenditures for

every student =special needs

students

  • No financial incentive to put student in

  • No financial incentive not to end services

  • Assumes fairly equal distribution of students


Group b concept

Group B Concept

Extra funding forExpenditures for

specific students =specific

students

  • Identification criteria clear

  • Parents follow programs


Capital outlay revenue limit corl note 64 transferred to m o

Capital Outlay Revenue Limit (CORL) Note: 64% transferred to M&O

Unweighted Student Count

times

Support Level

times

CORL growth factor

plus

High School Texts


Soft capital

Soft Capital

Unweighted Student Count

times

Support Level


2008 09 corl and soft capital amounts

2008-09 CORL and Soft Capital Amounts*

  • CORL K-8 = $225.76

  • CORL 9-12 = $267.94

  • CORL textbooks 9-12 = $69.88

  • Soft Capital = $225.00

    * Same amount since 1998-99 for all areas


Additional assistance charter schools

Additional AssistanceCharter Schools

  • Charter Schools / CORL, Soft Capital, Pupil Transportation, School Facilities Board (SFB)

  • Additional Assistance 2008-09

    K – 8$1,474.16

    9 – 12$1,718.10


District base level add ons

District Base Level Add-ons

  • Teacher compensation

    • Increase Base Level by 1.25% in SBE approves “performance evaluation system” i.e. certification

  • Teacher experience index

    • 2.25% increase to BSL for each year of experience above average

  • Career ladder

    • 28 districts get additional 5.5% increase to Base Level


Equalization concept

Equalization Concept

School District Spending Limit(Equalization Base)

minus

Local Contribution

(QTR)

equals

State Aid

(Equalization Assistance)


Two hypothetical unified districts

“Property Rich”

$3,226.88 x 1,000 (weighted ADM)

$3,226,880 guaranteed

Local property taxes

$50,000,000/$100

(district’s taxable value)

x

$2.9244 QTR

equals$1,462,200

(45% of guaranteed amount)

State (& county)

$3,226,880 minus $1,462,200

equals$1,764,680

(55% of guaranteed amount)

“Property Poor”

$3,226.88 x 1,000 (weighted ADM)

$3,226,880 guaranteed

Local property taxes

$25,000,000/$100

(district’s taxable value)

x

$2.9244 QTR

equals$731,000

(23% of guaranteed amount)

State (& county)

$ 3,226,880 minus $731,100

equals$2,496,780

(77% of guaranteed amount)

Two Hypothetical Unified Districts


Some district budget categories

Some District Budget Categories . . .

  • are paid from local property taxes . . .

  • . . . causing issues with per-pupil spending and taxation


M o overrides

M&O Overrides

  • M&O Overrides

    • 10% of RCL

  • K-3 Overrides

    • 5% of K-8 RCL


Other items outside equalization base fy 2008

Other Items Outside Equalization Base, FY 2008

  • Desegregation

  • Adjacent Ways

  • Excess Utilities

  • Transportation RCL

  • Small School Dist.

  • Dropout Prevention

  • Registered Warrants


Inflation funding 1991 92 through 2000 01

Inflation Funding 1991-92 through 2000-01

  • Increases to Base Level

  • Increase less than inflation for 9 or 10 years

  • Inflation funding covered one-third of actual inflation


Prop 301 implemented in 2001 02 school year

Prop. 301 / Implemented in 2001-02 School year

  • For first 5 years – 2%

  • For FY2006-07 and each year thereafter, the Legislature is required to increase the Base Level or other RCL components by the lesser of 2% or the price deflator.


Inflation impact post prop 301 continued

Inflation Impact – Post Prop. 301 (continued)

2001-022.22.0<0.2>

2002-032.42.0<0.4>

2003-041.72.00.3

2004-052.92.00.9

2005-062.2 3.2***1.0

2006-073.2 4.4****1.2

2007-083.2 2.98***** <0.22>

2008-092.72.0 <0.7>

* Percentage growth in the GNP price deflator

** Percentage increase in the base level funding factor as provided in A.R.S. 15-901

***Includes an additional 1.2% for retirement/health insurance

****Includes an additional 2.4% for retirement/health insurance and

increase salary for non-administrative personnel

*****Includes 0.98% for increased salary for non-admin. personnel

YearActual Rate * Funding Inc.** Variation


Education week rankings

Education Week Rankings

Adequacy of Funding

  • Rank 49th out of 50

  • Arizona $7,112 vs. national average of $9.963


Education week rankings1

Education Week Rankings

Education Spending Per Pupil FY2006 (Operational)

RankStateAmount

1Vermont$15,139

2Wyoming$14,128

3New Jersey$13,238

Avg.U. S. $9,963

48Nevada$7,213

49Arizona$7,112

50Utah$5,964


American legislative exchange council alec

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

Arizona (2005-06) (Operations)

  • Expenditure Per Pupil rank next to last

  • Pupil/Teacher Ratio = 21.3 vs. national average of 15.2

  • Pupil/Teacher Ratio rank next to highest (only Utah at 22.1 puts more kids in each class)


Move to national average

Move to National Average

  • Using ALEC data, Arizona is $2,956 below national average

  • 46% increase to move to average

  • Estimated cost is $3 billion

  • 2% inflation - $100 million

  • 30 years of extra 2% needed


Also part of the spending per pupil discussion capital spending

Also Part of the Spending Per Pupil Discussion / Capital Spending

Arizona ranks near the top for:

  • student growth

  • capital expenditures per pupil

  • student/teacher ratio


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

Other Major Revenue Sources

2008-09

  • Classroom Site Fund – Prop. 301

    ($470 per student / $390 per weighted count)

  • Instructional Improvement Fund –

    Indian Gaming ($40 per student)


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

School District Governing Board Allocates Funds to

Regular, Special and Pupil Transportation Program from

Budget Limit

Budget Limit

Regular

Education

Special

Education

Pupil

Transportation

Special Ed. includes:

A. Programs for the handicapped

B. Gifted education

C. Programs for LEP students

D. Remedial education

E. Vocational and technical education

F. Career education


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

Budget Limit Increase

No

GrowthGrowthDecline

New students 2% 0 <3%>

Plus inc. amt./stu. + 2% + 2% + 2%

4% 2% <1%>

Hire new Salary Cuts staff + Increase salary increase


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

Salary and Benefits

85 – 90% of operating budget


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

Taxpayer

Parents

and

Community

Employees

More Services More Services

Taxes High Quality Higher Salaries

Governing Board

Budget


School finance in arizona chuck essigs aasbo

  • Not enough dollars to meet demands

    Formula / Legislature

  • Dollars not being spent effectively

    Budget Allocation / School District


  • Login