Oregon Department of Education Presentation to the Education - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oregon Department of Education Presentation to the Education Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means State School Fund Brian Reeder Assistant Superintendent Brian Reeder, Assistant Superintendent February 2011

1

February 2011

Funding of Oregon’s K-12 Schools

Where does the funding come from?

How much is it? How does it get to school districts and ESDs? How does it get to school districts and ESDs? What are key education cost drivers? What can we learn from the Quality Education Model?

2

Sources of K-12 Funding: 1990-91 through 2012-13

$3.0

School District Operating Revenue

State

$2.0 $2.5

s

$1.0 $1.5

Billions

Local Federal

$0.0 $0.5

1990 91 1992 93 1994 95 1996 97 1998 99 2000 01 2002 03 2004 05 2006 07 2008 09 2010 11 2012 13

Federal

3

1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13

Sources of Oregon K-12 Funding in 2008-09

Operating Funds by Source 2008 Operating Funds by Source 2008 09 09

Federal

Operating Funds by Source 2008 Operating Funds by Source 2008-09 09

Federal Federal $0.67 billion $0.67 billion Local Local $1 94 billion $1 94 billion

State Federal 12%

Local Local $1.94 billion $1.94 billion State State $3.11 billion $3.11 billion Total Total $5.72 billion $5.72 billion

54% Local 34% 4

Federal Funds for K-12

Federal Forest Fees Grants Passed Through the State 85% Forest Fees 6% Federal State 54% Federal 12% Local 34% Direct Grants to Districts 9% 5

Local Funds for K-12

Fees and Charges 20% Property Taxes 75%

State 54% Local 34% 54%

Revenue from Other Local Governments Private Donations 1%

Federal 12% 6

4% 1%

State Funds for K-12

State School Fund 93% Local 34% State 54% 93% 34% State Grants 4% Common School Fund 2% State- Managed Timber Federal 12% 7 4% 1%

Oregon’s Funding Formula: Background

The current formula was adopted by the 1991 legislature and was first used starting in 1992-93. The formula has not changed significantly over the years. The formula distributes most of the money on a “weighted” student basis, with higher-cost students weighted more heavily. Th l f th f l i t di t ib t f d it bl ti The goal of the formula is to distribute funds equitably, compensating districts for differences in costs that are outside district control. ODE calculates the formula amounts for each district and ESD, then di t ib t th St t S h l F d ib d i l distributes the State School Fund as prescribed in law. Neither the formula nor ODE prescribes how districts and ESDs spend their formula revenue—that is a district decision.

8

Oregon’s Funding Formula: Background

Ab 80% f ll di i i di i h h h About 80% of all district operating revenue comes to districts through the formula. The remaining 20% is primarily federal grants and district fees and charges. The formula distributes a small amount of federal revenue, most local revenue, and nearly all state revenue. About 95% of formula revenue is distributed on a per “weighted” student About 95% of formula revenue is distributed on a per weighted student basis. The remaining 5% is for transportation grants, high-cost disability grants, and facility grants and facility grants. By statute, 95.25% of the formula revenue goes to school districts and 4.75% goes to ESDs.

9

Oregon’s Funding Formula: Categories of Revenue

• State School Fund
• “Local” Revenue

Local property taxes 93% County School Fund 2% Common School Fund 3% State managed timber revenue 1% State-managed timber revenue 1% Federal Forest Fees 1%

10

2008-09 Formula Revenue: $4.2 Billion

State School Local Revenue 34% ($1 45b) Fund 66% ($2.75b) ($1.45b)

11

Formula Revenue History: 1992-93 through 2008-09

$4.0 $5.0

Total

$3.0

s of Dollars

State School Fund

$1.0 $2.0

Billions

Local Revenue

$0.0

1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09

Year

12

Total Formula Revenue: Biennial Basis

$9.0 $10.0

State School Fund Federal Stimulus Local Revenue

$6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $

ions

$2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0

Bill

$0.0 $1.0 91-93 93-95 95-97 97-99 99-01 01-03 03-05 05-07 07-09 09-11 11-13 Bi i

13

Biennium

Key Points About Formula Revenue All of the formula revenue, in effect, goes into one big pot d h i di ib d di i d and then is distributed to districts and ESDs on a per “weighted” student basis using the funding formula. Once each district’s and ESD’s share of the pot is determined, the state pays the portion that is not raised locally.

14

District Allocations in 2009-10

E Di i G h S A f E h W i h d S d

$6 000 $7,000

Every District Gets the Same Amount for Each Weighted Student

Formula Revenue per ADMw 2009-10

$4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $2,000 $3,000 $0 $1,000

15

Local Revenue State School Fund

Student Weights in the Funding Formula

Regular (grades 1-12) 1.0 Kindergarten students 0 5 Kindergarten students 0.5 Special Education Additional 1.0 ESL Additional 0.5 Pregnant/Parenting Additional 1 0 Pregnant/Parenting Additional 1.0 Poverty Additional 0.25 Neglected & Delinquent Additional 0.25 Students in Foster Homes Additional 0 25 Students in Foster Homes Additional 0.25 Small School Correction Varies by size of school

16

Formula Uses Average Daily Membership Weighted Formula Uses Average Daily Membership Weighted (ADMw) Student Counts

ADMw = Average Daily Membership (ADM) ADMw Average Daily Membership (ADM) + Additional Weights ADMw Extended = Greater of ADMw in the current year and ADMw in the prior year

17

Oregon’s Funding Formula: 2009-10 Student Counts Average Daily Membership (ADM) 534,146 Average Daily Membership Weighted (ADMw) 656,502 g y p g ( ) , Extended ADMw 662,662

18

Oregon’s Funding Formula Has Oregon s Funding Formula Has Provisions Not Based on Student Weights Teacher Experience Adjustment gives more money to districts with higher-than-average teacher experience. High-Cost Disability Grants reimburse districts for special education students who cost more than $30,000 to serve. Transportation Grants reimburse districts for 70-90% of eligible transportation expenditures. Facilities Grants provide funds for classroom equipment to districts that add new classrooms.

19

Education Cost Drivers Enrollment Growth

Special Education Students English Language Learners English Language Learners Students in Poverty

Employee Salaries (54% of all district spending) Employee Salaries (54% of all district spending) Employee Benefits (27% of all district spending)

Retirement System Retirement System Health Insurance Social Security, Workers Comp., Unemployment Insurance

20

History of Enrollment Growth in History of Enrollment Growth in Certain Categories of Students

Average % Annual 1990-91 2009-10 Change % Change

Total Enrollment 484,652 561,698 16% 0.8% Special Ed Students 52 551 82 764 57% 2 4% Special Ed. Students 52,551 82,764 57% 2.4% Limited English Proficient 10,233 67,311 558% 10.4% Students in Poverty 58,263 83,242 43% 1.9%

21

Current Service Level Budget

The Current Service Level (CSL) budget is the State School Fund amount required in the coming biennium to fund the same level of a ou t equ ed t e co g b e u to u d t e sa e eve o services provided in the current biennium, taking into account inflation, enrollment growth, and growth in local revenue. The School Revenue Forecast Committee is charged with estimating the CSL budget prior to the start of each legislative estimating the CSL budget prior to the start of each legislative session.

22

State School Fund CSL for 2011-13

2009-11 state and local resources $9.02 billion* Plus: inflation and enrollment growth $0 92 billion Plus: inflation and enrollment growth $0.92 billion Equals: Total 2011-13 funding requirement $9.94 billion Less: expected local revenue ($3.23 billion) Equals: 2011-13 SSF Current Service Level $6.71 billion q

* Prior to allotment reductions in 2009-10 and 2010-11

23

Formula Funding Has Not Kept Up With Costs

$7,000

Funding per Weighted Student

Inflation-Adjusted Formula Funding per ADMw

$4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $2,000 $3,000

Inflation-Adjusted (1990-91 Dollars)

$0 $1,000 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 1996-97 1998-99 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 Year

24

The Quality Education Model: The Quality Education Model: A Tool for Policymakers Contains detailed information on school-level spending using data from the Database Initiative (DBI) and other sources. Is based on best practices identified by research. The “Base Case” reflects the actual spending levels and patterns of Oregon schools. Can estimate the costs of policy proposals.

25

Using the Quality Education Model for Using the Quality Education Model for Long-range Planning Evaluate the relative effectiveness of investments at each school level: elementary, middle, and high. Estimate the impact on student achievement of different patterns of spending over time. Help identify the relative costs of various practices and interventions that have the greatest long-term impact on interventions that have the greatest long term impact on improving graduation rates, dropout rates, and other measures

• f student success.

26