The Department of Finance released a long-awaited table today that shows how each K-12 District fares in Governor Jerry Brown’s new plan, aptly labeled Local Control Funding Formula, to direct more money to schools with low-income students and English learners. The 80-page chart calculates districts’ base per student funding for 2011-12 as a comparison and lists funding for the next two years and full per-student funding in seven years, if projected State revenues hold up.
In the Overview of the Local Control Funding Formula Proposal, the Department of Finance laid out its purpose:
Current funding for schools is inequitably distributed, not tied to student demographics, largely state-controlled, and lacking appropriate accountability measures. These inequities are primarily the result of how the current general purpose “revenue limit” funding system was created in response to court rulings and Proposition 13, freezing in funding decisions made decades ago. In addition, over time, the state created more than 60 categorical programs, each with accounting and reporting requirements, many of which are not outcome-focused. These categorical program funding allocations have also been frozen due to recent fiscal constraints and no longer are reflective of current demographics.
The Formula would increase flexibility and accountability at the local level so those closest to the students can make the decisions, reduce State bureaucracy, and ensure that student needs drive the allocation of resources.
Starting off with what districts now receive in base funding (known as “revenue limit” funding), it would create a new financing system as additional money becomes available from increased revenues generated by an improving State economy, and as past debts that the State owes to schools are paid off.
Brown’s plan would provide additional funds to districts having to meet the extra costs of educating economically disadvantaged and other high-needs students. There would be a “phase in” period, with annual funding increases, leading to full funding.
Under the plan, no district would receive less than they receive this year in State support, and “the vast majority” – 1,700 districts and charter schools – would get unspecified “moderate to significant” funding increases over the next five years, according to the overview. During this time, the average per-student funding under Proposition 98 is projected to rise $2,700 per student.
Approximately 230 school districts and charter schools are estimated to receive little or no additional funding as a result of the Formula. Almost all of those districts and charter schools are basic aid, where local property tax revenues alone are more than sufficient to finance their funding formula entitlement. Others receive necessary small school funding or have unique funding issues that result in them having current funding levels well above what all other schools are receiving.
EdSource did an analysis of how the formula would work:
• Every district would receive a base grant for every student – an average of $6,800 when fully funded, with more for high schools and less for elementary schools (to reflect the differential costs of educating pupils in different grade spans). Once the Formula is fully implemented, the significant reductions made to current general purpose “revenue limit” funding over the last five years (known as the deficit factor) will be restored, ensuring that the new base grant funding level is equivalent to the statewide average from 2007-2008.
• It would not include money for special education and a few other categorical programs that would be funded outside of the formula. Schools would get an extra $700 per student in grades K-3 for smaller classes, though districts could spend the money otherwise.
• Districts with disadvantaged students – low-income students, English learners and foster youth – would get additional dollars:
o A supplement of $2,385 per student, which is equal to 35 percent of the base grant for every disadvantaged student in the district.
o An additional grant for those districts in which high-needs students comprise 50 percent or more of students, reflecting the need for additional money to counteract the demands on districts with a high concentration of poor children. Districts with 60 percent high-needs students would get 38.5 percent more revenue per high-needs student ($2,624); a district in which every child is an English learner or low-income student would get a maximum of 52.5 percent more ($3,578) in per-student funding than a district with no high-needs children.
Accountability at the Local Level:
In addition, the Governor Brown and the Department of Finance have particular requirements for how to keep districts, charter schools, and county offices of education accountable:
• Each school district, charter school and county office of education will produce a local control and accountability plan that will set annual goals and describe how the local agency would use available resources.
• The proposal will provide greater transparency and allow a local agency to better craft solutions to address local needs; involve principals, teachers, parents, students, and other community members in the planning process; and require governing boards to approve the plan at a public meeting.
• The plans will include actions the local agency will take to provide basic conditions necessary for student achievement (such as credentialed teachers, adequate instructional materials, facilities in good repair); implement the common core standards; improve academic outcomes; and address the needs of English learners, foster children, and students from low-income backgrounds.
• A governing board will be required to adopt a budget that aligns with the agency’s local control and accountability plan. A county office of education will review both a district’s budget and its plan to ensure that they are aligned. The Superintendent of Public Instruction will perform this review function for local plans adopted by county offices.
The Table can be found here.
Nevin Trehan
Showing posts with label Education Funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education Funding. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
New LAO Report "Overview of Special Education in California"
On January 3, 2013, the State's Legislative Analyst's Office ("LAO") issued a report entitled Overview of Special Education in California. The report provides a broad summary of special education.
Below is the Executive Summary of the report. A link to the full report is at the bottom of this page.
LAO's Executive Summary
Special education is the “catch–all” term that encompasses the specialized services that schools provide for disabled students. This report provides a comprehensive review of special education—conveying information on applicable laws, affected students, services, funding, and student outcomes.
Public Schools Must Provide Special Support for Disabled Students. Federal law requires schools to provide “specially defined [sic] instruction, and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.” The law requires schools to provide disabled students with these special supports from age 3 until age 22, or until they graduate from high school, whichever happens first. These services are in addition to what a nondisabled student receives.
About One in Ten California Students Receives Special Education Services. About 686,000 students with disabilities (SWDs) receive special education services in California, comprising about 10 percent of the state’s public school enrollment. Specific learning disabilities—including dyslexia—are the most common diagnoses requiring special education services (affecting about 4 percent of all K–12 students), followed by speech and language impairments. While the overall prevalence of students with autism and chronic health problems still is relatively rare (each affecting 1 percent or less of all public school students), the number of students diagnosed with these disabilities has increased notably over the past decade.
Special Education Services Vary Based on Individual Student Needs. Federal law only requires schools to provide special education services to students with diagnosed disabilities that interfere with their educational attainment. To determine a student’s need and eligibility for special education, schools must conduct a formal evaluation process. If schools determine that general education programs cannot adequately meet a disabled student’s needs, they develop Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to define the additional services the school will provide. Each student’s IEP differs based on his or her particular disability and needs. Specialized academic instruction is the most common service that schools provide. This category includes any kind of specific practice that adapts the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to help SWDs access the general curriculum. Other commonly provided services include speech and language assistance and various types of therapies for physical and psychological needs that may be impeding a SWD’s educational attainment. Although federal law encourages schools to educate disabled students in mainstream settings, most (about three–quarters) of special education services are delivered in settings other than regular classrooms.
In General, the State Uses a Regional Structure to Organize Special Education. Because economies of scale often improve both programmatic outcomes and cost–effectiveness, special education funding and some services are administered regionally by 127 Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) rather than by the approximately 1,000 school districts in the state. Most SELPAs are collaborative consortia of nearby districts, county offices of education (COEs), and charter schools, although some large districts have formed their own independent SELPAs, and three SELPAs consist of only charter schools.
The Excess Costs Associated With Providing Special Education Services Are Supported by Federal, State, and Local Funds. Schools receive billions of dollars to provide a basic educational program—including teachers, instructional materials, academic support, and enrichment activities—for all students, including SWDs. The average annual costs of educating a SWD, however, are more than double those of a mainstream student—approximately $22,300 compared to $9,600. (It is important to note that most SWDs require less severe, less costly services, whereas some students require intensive interventions that cost notably more than $22,300 per year.) Schools receive categorical funds to cover a portion of these additional, or “excess costs,” associated with addressing students’ disabilities. Because federal and state special education funds typically are not sufficient to cover the costs of all IEP–required services, however, schools spend from their local unrestricted general funds to make up the difference. In 2010–11, special education expenditures totaled $8.6 billion. State special education categorical funds covered the largest share of these costs (43 percent), combined with spending from local general purpose funds (39 percent) and federal special education funds (18 percent). Over the past several years, a combination of increasing special education costs and relatively flat state and federal special education funding has resulted in local budgets covering an increasing share of these costs.
Special Education Funds Allocated to SELPAs Based on Overall Student Population, Not Number of Disabled Students. California relies primarily on a “census–based” funding methodology that allocates special education funds to SELPAs based on the total number of students attending, regardless of students’ disability status. This funding model implicitly assumes that SWDs—and associated special education costs—are relatively equally distributed among the general student population and across the state. The amount of per–pupil funding each SELPA receives varies based on historical factors. In 2011–12, the weighted statewide average per–pupil rate was $645 per student (including both state and federal funds). After receiving its allocation, each SELPA develops a local plan for how to allocate funds to the school districts and charter schools in its region based on how it has chosen to organize special education services for SWDs.
Mixed Academic Outcomes for Disabled Students. Some performance indicators suggest SWDs generally are performing well, whereas other indicators are less encouraging. For example, performance on standardized tests (including those specifically designed for SWDs) has improved over the past several years, but a majority of SWDs still fail to meet state and federal achievement expectations. As SWDs near the end of their time receiving special education services, data show that about 60 percent of SWDs graduate on time with a high school diploma and about two–thirds of SWDs are engaged productively after high school (with about half enrolled in an institute of higher education and 15 percent competitively employed within one year after high school).
The complete report, Overview of Special Education in California, is available in PDF or HTML from the LAO.
Below is the Executive Summary of the report. A link to the full report is at the bottom of this page.
LAO's Executive Summary
Special education is the “catch–all” term that encompasses the specialized services that schools provide for disabled students. This report provides a comprehensive review of special education—conveying information on applicable laws, affected students, services, funding, and student outcomes.
Public Schools Must Provide Special Support for Disabled Students. Federal law requires schools to provide “specially defined [sic] instruction, and related services, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.” The law requires schools to provide disabled students with these special supports from age 3 until age 22, or until they graduate from high school, whichever happens first. These services are in addition to what a nondisabled student receives.
About One in Ten California Students Receives Special Education Services. About 686,000 students with disabilities (SWDs) receive special education services in California, comprising about 10 percent of the state’s public school enrollment. Specific learning disabilities—including dyslexia—are the most common diagnoses requiring special education services (affecting about 4 percent of all K–12 students), followed by speech and language impairments. While the overall prevalence of students with autism and chronic health problems still is relatively rare (each affecting 1 percent or less of all public school students), the number of students diagnosed with these disabilities has increased notably over the past decade.
Special Education Services Vary Based on Individual Student Needs. Federal law only requires schools to provide special education services to students with diagnosed disabilities that interfere with their educational attainment. To determine a student’s need and eligibility for special education, schools must conduct a formal evaluation process. If schools determine that general education programs cannot adequately meet a disabled student’s needs, they develop Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to define the additional services the school will provide. Each student’s IEP differs based on his or her particular disability and needs. Specialized academic instruction is the most common service that schools provide. This category includes any kind of specific practice that adapts the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to help SWDs access the general curriculum. Other commonly provided services include speech and language assistance and various types of therapies for physical and psychological needs that may be impeding a SWD’s educational attainment. Although federal law encourages schools to educate disabled students in mainstream settings, most (about three–quarters) of special education services are delivered in settings other than regular classrooms.
In General, the State Uses a Regional Structure to Organize Special Education. Because economies of scale often improve both programmatic outcomes and cost–effectiveness, special education funding and some services are administered regionally by 127 Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) rather than by the approximately 1,000 school districts in the state. Most SELPAs are collaborative consortia of nearby districts, county offices of education (COEs), and charter schools, although some large districts have formed their own independent SELPAs, and three SELPAs consist of only charter schools.
The Excess Costs Associated With Providing Special Education Services Are Supported by Federal, State, and Local Funds. Schools receive billions of dollars to provide a basic educational program—including teachers, instructional materials, academic support, and enrichment activities—for all students, including SWDs. The average annual costs of educating a SWD, however, are more than double those of a mainstream student—approximately $22,300 compared to $9,600. (It is important to note that most SWDs require less severe, less costly services, whereas some students require intensive interventions that cost notably more than $22,300 per year.) Schools receive categorical funds to cover a portion of these additional, or “excess costs,” associated with addressing students’ disabilities. Because federal and state special education funds typically are not sufficient to cover the costs of all IEP–required services, however, schools spend from their local unrestricted general funds to make up the difference. In 2010–11, special education expenditures totaled $8.6 billion. State special education categorical funds covered the largest share of these costs (43 percent), combined with spending from local general purpose funds (39 percent) and federal special education funds (18 percent). Over the past several years, a combination of increasing special education costs and relatively flat state and federal special education funding has resulted in local budgets covering an increasing share of these costs.
Special Education Funds Allocated to SELPAs Based on Overall Student Population, Not Number of Disabled Students. California relies primarily on a “census–based” funding methodology that allocates special education funds to SELPAs based on the total number of students attending, regardless of students’ disability status. This funding model implicitly assumes that SWDs—and associated special education costs—are relatively equally distributed among the general student population and across the state. The amount of per–pupil funding each SELPA receives varies based on historical factors. In 2011–12, the weighted statewide average per–pupil rate was $645 per student (including both state and federal funds). After receiving its allocation, each SELPA develops a local plan for how to allocate funds to the school districts and charter schools in its region based on how it has chosen to organize special education services for SWDs.
Mixed Academic Outcomes for Disabled Students. Some performance indicators suggest SWDs generally are performing well, whereas other indicators are less encouraging. For example, performance on standardized tests (including those specifically designed for SWDs) has improved over the past several years, but a majority of SWDs still fail to meet state and federal achievement expectations. As SWDs near the end of their time receiving special education services, data show that about 60 percent of SWDs graduate on time with a high school diploma and about two–thirds of SWDs are engaged productively after high school (with about half enrolled in an institute of higher education and 15 percent competitively employed within one year after high school).
The complete report, Overview of Special Education in California, is available in PDF or HTML from the LAO.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Legal Alert: LAO Examines Fiscal Oversight of Schools
The California Legislative Analysts Office ("LAO") recently released a report entitled "School District Fiscal Oversight and Intervention," in which it examined the State's fiscal oversight system for school districts. In this report, the LAO compiled fifteen predictive factors of school districts that face fiscal distress, summarized the current system for fiscal oversight and intervention, and assessed how this system is functioning.
The LAO concluded in its report that the current system of fiscal oversight has generally been effective in ensuring the fiscal health of school districts and recommends preserving the current system in order to ensure sufficient support to prevent districts from requiring intervention. The LAO noted that "the fiscal oversight system is especially crucial during challenging fiscal times, when school districts often must deal with uncertain revenues, large state deferrals, and possible trigger reductions."
Please see our Legal Alert here for more information.
The complete LAO report is available here.
Meghan Covert Russell
The LAO concluded in its report that the current system of fiscal oversight has generally been effective in ensuring the fiscal health of school districts and recommends preserving the current system in order to ensure sufficient support to prevent districts from requiring intervention. The LAO noted that "the fiscal oversight system is especially crucial during challenging fiscal times, when school districts often must deal with uncertain revenues, large state deferrals, and possible trigger reductions."
Please see our Legal Alert here for more information.
The complete LAO report is available here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)