School finance partnership programs outside of per pupil what other states are doing
Download
1 / 11

School Finance Partnership Programs Outside of Per Pupil: What Other States Are Doing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 79 Views
  • Uploaded on

School Finance Partnership Programs Outside of Per Pupil: What Other States Are Doing. Mary Wickersham, Colorado Children’s Campaign. What is a categorical?. Funding delivered outside of per pupil funding; Particular students or programs; Required to be spent in specified ways;.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'School Finance Partnership Programs Outside of Per Pupil: What Other States Are Doing' - xanto


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 partnership programs outside of per pupil what other states are doing

School Finance PartnershipPrograms Outside of Per Pupil: What Other States Are Doing

Mary Wickersham, Colorado Children’s Campaign


School finance partnership programs outside of per pupil what other states are doing

What is a categorical?

  • Funding delivered outside of per pupil funding;

  • Particular students or programs;

  • Required to be spent in specified ways;



Other state programs
Other State Programs

Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff


Categorical funding
Categorical funding

  • All of state categorical funding is state $$, there is no local share.

  • Except that none of the categorical programs provides 100% of the costs associated with the services or students identified.

  • On average unreimbursed categorical programs accounted for about 17% of total district SFA revenue (nearly 30% in Denver)


Substantial underfunding of some categoricals
Substantial underfunding of some categoricals

  • Special Education: The state and federal government collectively provide about 35% of special education funding.

    • Unreimbursed Special Ed. costs can amount to 16% of a district’s school finance revenue.

  • Transportation: Just under 25% of school district expenditures on transportation are covered by the state.

    • Unreimbursed transportation costs can amount to 8% of a district’s school finance revenue.

  • ELPA: On a per student basis, students that do not speak or comprehend English receive an additional $182, while those with better skills receive as little as $17.

    • For a district like Denver, total ELPA funding ($1.7M) covers about 2% of the expenditures for those students/programs.


The use of categorical funding in other states
The use of categorical funding in other states

  • 49 states use categorical funding as a mechanism to direct additional funds to targeted students and schools.

  • Ohio reported 105 separate categorical programs. In contrast, Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming each reported only 2.

  • Colorado ranks 34th in dollar allocation for categorical programs per capita.


Advantages of using categorical funding
Advantages of using categorical funding

  • Some programs do not easily lend themselves to per pupil distribution

    • Transportation: the cost per pupil for transportation varies from over $3800 per pupil (Agate) to a low of less than $150 per pupil (Estes Park).

    • Capital: on a per pupil basis local capital capacity varies 21,000%.

  • As an equity measure, programs for at risk students are sometimes created as categoricals to ensure the $$ do get spent on those students.

  • Often state educational priorities get created as categoricals to ensure $$ be used in a specific way.

    • Reduced class size in Florida.

    • After school programs in California.

    • Counselor Corps here in Colorado

    • Federal funding examples (outside of formula distribution): TIF, I3, Turnaround grants


D isadvantages of using categorical funding
Disadvantages of using categorical funding

  • Because funding is not tied to students, programs are less likely to see regular increases and programs are more likely to be underfunded.

  • Because of funding uncertainty, problems with fiscal sustainability of programs.

  • In general, because categorical programs are created separately, they are more easily eliminated.

  • Specific spending constraints impede flexibility and innovation.


Capital funding in colorado best
Capital funding in Colorado: BEST

  • About half of the state’s school districts to not have the total local capacity to build a single school.

  • Dedicated funding stream from the School Land Trust;

  • Grant-based distribution based on need;

  • Local matching amount requirement is means-tested;

  • Statewide needs assessment identified $17.9 billion in unmet needs and the current program is on target to deliver $1 billion before leverage capacity runs out.

  • Has created/saved nearly 9000 jobs to date.


New development of incentive reward categorical programs
New development of incentive/reward categorical programs

  • Because of the nature of performance-based incentives and/or rewards, these programs would most easily designed as categorical programs (instead of built into the formula).

    • They are not automatically delivered;

    • They do not go to each student/district equally.