Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction

1. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction WASBO May 2007 Overview of K–12 Funding in Washington Kim Thompson Supervisor, School District/ESD Accounting

2. Note: Page numbers refer to the January 2006 Organization and Financing of Washington Public Schools,available at www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/ORG/Org.asp. • Disclaimer: This is a simplified presentation on K–12 funding in Washington State for informational overview purposes only. Specific authoritative technical details are contained in statute and rules and may not be fully represented here.

3. Presentation Agenda • School Governance and Statewide Perspective • Apportionment Funding • Other State Categorical Funding • Local Levy Funding • Federal Funding

4. School Governance and Statewide Perspective

5. School Governance I State Legislature U.S. Congress Legislative Branch Governor Executive Branch U.S. Department of Education Supt. of Public Instruction State Auditor State Board of Education Professional Educator Standards Board

6. School Governance II Superintendent of Public Instruction State State Auditor Nine Educational Service Districts pg. 28 Regional 295 or 296? School Districts Local

7. What is the State’s Responsibility? Page 11 Washington State Constitution Article IX Section 1. “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.” Section 2. “The legislature shall provide a general and uniform system of public schools . . . and such . . . normal and technical schools as may hereafter be established.”

8. Washington’s School Finance System • Is a legislative response to three court decisions interpreting the “paramount duty” clause of the state constitution. • These court decisions describe the state’s duty under the constitution. • 1977 • 1983 • 1988

9. Seattle Lawsuit - Doran I Page 21 • After a levy failure in 1976, Seattle School District sued the state, alleging that the state was not meeting its constitutional duty to make ample provision for education. • On January 14, 1977, Judge Doran issued a declaratory judgment finding that: • State funding was insufficient to fund a basic program of education; therefore, • The Legislature must define and fully fund a program of basic education through regular and dependable tax sources and must not rely on local excess levies for that funding.

10. Doran II and IIB Decisions • Subsequent decisions by Judge Doran expanded and clarified the state’s responsibility for basic education. • The 1983 decision included the following categorical programs to the state’s basic responsibilities: • Special Education □ Bilingual Education • Remediation (LAP) □ Pupil Transp. (some students) • The 1988 decision: • Supported state funding for special education based on averages. • Concluded some form of “safety net” was needed to supplement special education funding for districts demonstrating need.

11. Contemporary Issues • Lawsuits: • Special education. • K–12 adequacy. • Equity. • Washington Learns recommendations: • Transparency. • Some are included in 2007–09 budget.

12. Funding Principles • The funding formula is not cast in concrete; it is the continuing obligation of the Legislature to review, define, and fund basic education. • Local school levies may be allowed as long as: • they enrich programs outside of the legislative definition of basic education and • are not used to reduce the state’s obligation to fund basic education.

13. 2005–07 Biennium State General Fund Revenues Page 6 Source: March 2005 Revenue Forecast from http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/revenue.asp; Columns may not add up due to rounding.

14. 2005–07 BienniumState General Fund Expenditures Citizens Guide to the Budget, page 12: http://www1.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/WM/publications.htm

15. School District General Fund Revenue per Student 2005–06 School Year Source: Summary of all School Districts’ F-196; 2005–06 is the latest available year.

16. State Average School District Expenditures 2005–06 School Year Source: Summary of all School Districts’ F-196; 2005–06 is the latest available year.

17. Apportionment Funding

18. General Apportionment Basic Funding Concepts Enrollment Formula Staff Units (Teachers, Administrators, and Aides) Salaries & Benefits Nonemployee Related Costs (NERC) State General Apportionment Allocation

19. Factor #1 Basic Education Enrollment – page 52 • Student FTE based on “seat time.” • Grade K: 2 hours per day = 0.5 FTE • Grades 1–3: 4 hours per day = 1.0 FTE • Grades 4–12: 5 hours per day = 1.0 FTE • Based on enrolled hours–not attendance. • Nine monthly count dates–first school day of each month. • All day kindergarten – if it passed for 2007–09 – is funded separately. • Alternative Learning Experience, Work-based Learning, and Running Start provide exceptions to seat time FTE rule.

20. Factor # 2Legislative Staffing Ratios – page 53 1,000 FTE students generate: • 4.0 Certificated Administrative Staff (CAS) • Superintendents, Principals etc. • 46.0 Certificated Instructional Staff (CIS) • Teachers, Program Supervisors. • 16.7 Classified Staff (1 for every 60 FTE students) • Business office, classroom aides. Enhanced staffing (per 1,000 FTEs): • K–3 FTEs = 49.0 – 53.2 CIS (use it or lose it.) • 4th grade = 46.0 – 53.2 CIS (use it or lose it.)

21. Factor # 3Instructional Staff – Salary Funding – page 56 • The state determines the funding provided to each certificated position based upon the experience and education level of the staff hired. This is captured in a staff mix factor. • Districtwide average mix factor determines the state funding provided for each funded certificated staff position in the district.

22. Staff Mix – page 59 • The staff mix factor is a five-decimal number between 1.00000 and approximately 2.00000 that quantifies the educational and experience level of instructional staff of the district. • 1.00000 equals a new teacher with no experience. • The highest staff mix, approximately 2.00000, equals a teacher with a Ph.D. and 16 or more years of experience.

23. Compensation • Certificated staff are typically compensated as follows: • Base Contract – typically tied to state funding schedule. • Supplemental Contracts for additional time, responsibilities, and incentives (TRI). • The state assumes No responsibility for supplemental contracts. These are typically funded from local levy dollars.

24. Why do some districts get more state funding than others? • Differences in base salary amounts. • Different levels of staff experience and education. • Different levels of students participating in: • Bilingual Programs. • Special Education. • Vocational Education. • Transportation. • Different levels of poverty affect LAP funding. • Differences in levy equalization funding.

25. 2006–2007 General Apportionment Simplified Example – 1,000 Students

26. Other State Categorical Funding

27. Special Education Funding - Page 68 • 2 categories: • Birth through 2 (required for all districts 9/1/09.) • 3–21. • Birth through 2: funded at 115% of basic ed allocation. • 3–21: funded up to 12.7% of all resident FTE. • Allocation per funded student is 93.09% of basic ed allocation. • Additional safety net funding provided.

28. Special Education Changes Proposed in 2007–09 Budget • 3 categories instead of 2: • Birth through 2 years old. • 3 to K: 3, 4, and 5 year olds not yet enrolled in kindergarten. • K–21. • Birth to K: funded at 115% of basic ed allocation. • K–21: funded just like 3–21 group in current (2006–07) formula. • 12.7% threshold based on K–21 rather than 3–21.

29. Learning Assistance Program (LAP) - Page 73 • Purpose: to assist low achieving students. • In 2005–06, calculation was revised to be based solely on poverty, with the total allocation increasing from 2004–05. • 2006–07 Funding based on the sum of: • District % of FRPL * FTE * $197.70 PLUS • If District % of FRPL is > state average of 40%, then • (District % of FRPL - 40 %) * FTE * $197.70. • Funding may be spent on any grade. • Increase over 2005–06 must be spent on G 9–10 for 2006–07. • Typical service: LAP instructors provide one-on-one or small group instructional support.

30. Bilingual Education - Page 74 • Purpose: To assist limited English proficient (LEP) students. • Funding is based on number of eligible students. • 2005–06 funding: $761.81 per bilingual student. • 2006–07 funding: $805.68 per bilingual student.

31. Highly Capable - Page 78 • Purpose: To provide additional support for highly capable (gifted) students. • Funding provided for 2% of total enrollment. • 2005–06 funding: $347.24 per student. • 2006–07 funding: $352.02 per student. • Money is used in a variety of ways for enriched programs.

32. Local Levy Funding

33. Local Levy Funding - Page 81 Local levies: • Are for enhancements to basic education programs. • Are calculated on a calendar year basis, not school year. • Require voter approval: • 60% supermajority required and • 40% of votes cast in last general election. • HJR 4204 places simple majority on the November ballot. • Are sometimes called “excess levies” because the levy is in excess of the statutory 1 percent limit on property tax. • Are also referred to as “special levies” because they require voter approval. • Are not required. For 2006, 21 districts did not have a local levy.

34. Local Levy Funding • Prior to 1977, there was no limit on the amount that school districts could raise from local levies. • In 1977, the Legislature passed the Levy Lid Act, which limited school district maintenance and operation (M&O) levies to 10% of a levy base and set a 4 year time limit for districts to get to 10%. • Before all districts were reduced to 10%, the Legislature raised the lid to its current 24% of the levy base. Lid was last changed in 1999. • Levy lid = Levy base X Levy authority % ± Transfers – Maximum LEA

35. Local Levy Funding - Page 81 • The levy base is: • Generally the total of the state and federal revenues a district received in the previous school year. • 2005–06 revenues make up the 2007 base. • One of the limiting factors for M&O levies and is multiplied by the levy authority %. • Statewide average per student for 2006 collections was $1,411.

36. Local Levy Funding - Page 83 • Levy Authority (Lid) Percent- page 82 • Statewide lid is 24%. • Statewide average is 23.06%. • 91 districts have “grand-fathered” levy authority percentages up to 33.9%. • Transfers are made for students residing in one school district but served by another district.

37. Local Levy Funding – Local Effort Assistance (LEA) - Page 72 • LEA is state funding begun in 1989 to: • Match excess general fund levies. • Help school districts with above-average tax rates due to low property valuations. • For calendar year 2006: • 211 of the state’s 296 districts received LEA allocations totaling $179.5 Million. • 21 additional districts were eligible but failed to pass a levy.

38. Local Levy Funding – Local Effort Assistance (LEA) - Page 72 • To qualify, districts must: • Pass a levy. • Have above average tax rates due to low property valuations per student. • Have a levy rate per $1,000 based upon a 12% theoretical levy that exceeds the calculated state average rate required to collect a 12% levy.

39. Federal Funding

40. Federal Funding To Schools 2005–06

41. Federal Funding - Allocations • Programs under NCLB: • Title I, Part A, Basic; Part B, Reading First; Part C, Migrant. • Title III, Limited English Proficient. • Title VII, Indian Education. • Title VIII, Federal Impact Aid. • School Improvement – multiple sections. • Title I funds are allocated to districts in part based upon poverty factors obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. • IDEA and Impact Aid are based upon specific student populations. • School Food Service (USDA) funding is based upon free & reduced price eligibilities. • Average October 2005 = 37.9%; October 2006 = 37.5%.

42. Want More Info? Please see the School Apportionment and Financial Services website at: http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/