OVERVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIAS K12 EDUCATION FUNDING SYSTEM State Funding Is It Fair - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 39
About This Presentation
Title:

OVERVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIAS K12 EDUCATION FUNDING SYSTEM State Funding Is It Fair

Description:

Education Finance. Alignment. 4. PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY ... 2002 Rendell Campaign. 2003-04 Budget Debate. Accountability Block Grants. Act 72 of 2004 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:51
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 40
Provided by: eplc2
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: OVERVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIAS K12 EDUCATION FUNDING SYSTEM State Funding Is It Fair


1
OVERVIEW OF PENNSYLVANIAS K-12 EDUCATION
FUNDING SYSTEMState Funding Is It Fair
Equitable?
  • York County Education Summit
  • October 27, 2006
  • Presented by
  • Ronald Cowell
  • The Education Policy and Leadership Center

2
EPLC Mission
  • The Mission of EPLC is to encourage and support
    the use of more effective state-level
    education policies in order to improve student
    learning in grades P-12, increase the effective
    operation of schools, and enhance educational
    opportunities for citizens of all ages.

3
FRAMEWORK FOR EDUCATION POLICY
  • Governance
  • Standards (Expectations)
  • Assessment (How are we doing)
  • Consequences
  • Educational Capacity
  • Education Finance
  • Alignment

4
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY
  • 1776 State Constitution A school or schools
    shall be established in each county by the
    legislature, for the convenient instruction of
    youth.
  • 1790 State Constitution The legislature shall,
    as soon as conveniently may be, provide, by law,
    for the establishment of schools throughout the
    State, in such manner that the poor may be taught
    gratis.
  • 1831 Common School Fund established with
    100,000 per year available

5
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY
  • 1874 PA Constitution The General Assembly
    shall provide for the maintenance and support of
    a thorough and efficient system of public
    schools, wherein all the children of this
    Commonwealth above the age of six years may be
    educated, and shall appropriate at least one
    million dollars each year for that purpose.

6
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY
  • 1923 First effort to use state funding for
    equalization
  • 1930 to 1950 State aid increases from 17 to
    40 of costs
  • 1949 New School Code - State aid based upon
    district teaching units X fixed dollar figure
    established by Legislature X districts standard
    reimbursement fraction

7
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY
  • 1957 State aid formula begins to consider
    actual instructional expense (AIE)
  • Mid 60s to 1983 Statutory goal that the state
    pay 50 of the statewide district instructional
    costs
  • 1968 For 1966-67 school year and thereafter,
    State began to pay on basis of weighted pupils
    and local wealth state also began to make
    additional payments for children in poverty,
    density, sparsity, and homebound instruction

8
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY
  • 1971 State income tax established
  • 1974-75 State reimbursement at 54
  • 1977 Personal income valuation becomes a factor
    in determining district aid ratio (40)
  • 1977-1980 State reimbursement averages 46 per
    year

9
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY
  • 1983 Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education
    (ESBE) enacted includes Factor for Educational
    Expense (FEE) removes 50 finding requirement
  • 1991 Special Education funding changed
  • 1992 ESBE abandoned
  • 1993 and 1994 foundation funding
  • Ridge/Schweiker Administration
  • Vouchers Charter Schools

10
PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY
  • 2002 Rendell Campaign
  • 2003-04 Budget Debate
  • Accountability Block Grants
  • Act 72 of 2004
  • Special Session on Property Tax Relief

11
2006-07 EDUCATION BUDGET
  • Basic Ed Subsidy - 4.784 billion
  • Accountability Block Grants - 250 million
  • Transportation - 507 million
  • Special Education - 980 million
  • Social Security - 474 million
  • School Employees Retire - 368 million
  • Higher Education - 1.562 billion
  • PHEAA - 451 million

12
PUBLIC K-12 SPENDING
  • 2003-04 Per Pupil
  • Amount Rank
  • US 8,287 ---
  • PA 9,979 9th
  • Source US Census Bureau

13
PUBLIC K-12 REVENUEPER 1,000 PERSONAL INCOME
  • 2003-04 1991-92
  • Amount Rank Amount
    Rank
  • US - Total 50.53 --- 48.87 ---
  • PA - Total 51.09 21 49.98
    27
  • US Local 22.20 ---
    23.25 ---
  • PA Local- 28.65 7 27.24
    13
  • US State 23.82 --- 22.43
    ---
  • PA State- 18.33 42 20.25
    36
  • Differences to 100 come from federal sources.
    Source US Census Bureau.

14
WHY STATE FUNDING FOR EDUCATION?
  • State Constitutional Mandate for General
    Assembly to Provide for System of Schools
  • State Incentive for local government to fund
    schools
  • State funding to reduce local taxes
  • Need for Equity
  • Need for Adequacy

15
ADEQUATE FOR WHAT?
  • The Expectations for Student Performance
    Established by PAs Academic Standards
  • The Expectations of No Child Left Behind Law and
    Related Policies

16
KEY ELEMENTS OF ESBE FORMULA
  • WADMs (Number of Students)
  • X
  • Aid Ratio (Relative Wealth of District)
  • X
  • FEE (Cost Factor)
  • Basic Subsidy to the District

17
SUBSIDY PLUS ADD-ONS
  • Poverty
  • Density, Low-density
  • Sparsity
  • Hold Harmless
  • Transportation
  • Special education
  • Charter Schools

18
SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING
  • State paid 100 excess cost until 1991
  • New formula as of 1991-92
  • Assumes 1 and 15 incidence rates
  • No consideration of district costs or wealth
  • In 2004-05, more than 1 billion in
    non-reimbursed cost to districts

19
CHARTER SCHOOLS
  • Approved by district or state appeal board
  • No limit on number in state
  • Cost borne by local districts
  • Law assumes some savings to districts
  • Almost half-billion annual cost to districts
  • Since 2002-03, state will pay up to 30
  • Cyber charter schools

20
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT PA FUNDING SYSTEM
  • Since 1992, a Non-System -
    No PREDICTABILITY
  • State Government has no sense of obligation to
    students or to honor a commitment to a funding
    formula
  • Annual K-12 Funding is based on political
    considerations rather than educational

21
PRINCIPLES OF A SOUND STATE EDUCATION FINANCE
SYSTEM
  • Equity
  • Adequacy
  • Accountability
  • Predictability

22
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CURRENT PA FUNDING SYSTEM
  • PA honors none of the four principles
  • State Share in bottom five in nation
  • State Appropriations Per Student below national
    average
  • Therefore, districts too dependent on Local
    Wealth Property Taxes
  • Therefore, great Inequity and Inadequacy among
    501 school districts

23
STATE/LOCAL SHARES for Elementary/Secondary
Public Education
  • State Share
    Local Share
  • PA National PA National
  • 2003-04 35.9 (47.1) 56.1
    (43.9)
  • 2002-03 36.7 (49.0) 55.8 (42.7)
  • 2001-02 37.4 (49.4) 55.3 (42.8)
  • 2000-01 37.3 (49.9) 56.3 (43.0)
  • 1999-00 37.9 (49.8) 55.8 (43.1)
  • 1998-99 38.3 (49.5) 55.8 (43.6)
  • 1997-98 38.7 (49.0) 55.5
    (44.4)
  • 1996-97 39.2 (48.8) 55.4 (44.8)
  • 1995-96 39.8 (48.1) 54.8 (45.5)
  • 1994-95 40.0 (47.5) 54.8 (46.0)
  • 1993-94 40.1 (45.9) 54.5 (47.6)
  • 1992-93 39.9 (46.4) 54.2 (47.0)
  • 1991-92 41.0 (47.3) 53.3 (46.2)
  • Source US Census Bureau

24
STATE FUNDING APPROPRIATED PER STUDENT
25
RESULT 2003-04 BURDEN ON LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES
  • Overly Dependent on Local Real Property Taxes
  • Total K-12 State- Local K-12 from
  • wide Revenues Property Taxes Prop T
  • US 462,686,152 132,831,505 28.7
  • PA 20,053,897 8,846,747 44.1
  • in ooos
  • Source US Census Bureau

26
RESULT INEQUITY FOR STUDENTS ACROSS PA
  • Great Inequity for Students
  • Among 501 Districts
  • In 2003-04, instructional spending per pupil in
    Pennsylvania school districts ranged
    from 4,690 to 14,527
  • This means, in an average classroom of 25
    students, a gap of almost 250,000 per classroom
    per year.
  • Inequitable and Inadequate Resources in a NCLB
    and Standards-Based Environment with Equal
    Expectations for All Students

27
RESULT INEQUITY FOR TAXPAYERS ACROSS PA
  • Great Discrepancies in Local Effort and Resultant
    Burden on Local Taxpayers

28
Key Issues
  • Should all children in PA
  • have a fundamental right
  • to a quality public education?

29
Key Issues
  • What is
  • student success

30
Key Issues
  • Does Money Matter?

31
Key Issues
  • SBE Costing-Out Study
  • What are the costs of providing
  • the educational capacity
  • necessary to achieve expectations of
  • NCLB and Pennsylvanias academic
  • standards/graduation requirements?

32
Key Issues
  • Who should pay for the
  • implementation of
  • No Child Left Behind?

33
Key Issues
  • State Mandates?
  • Who Should Pay?

34
Key Issues
  • Tension of Local Control of Funding vs.
  • State Requirements/Conditions attached to
    some/all of the Funding

35
Key Issues
  • 501 School Districts
  • Structural Consolidation?
  • Functional Consolidation?

36
Key Issues
  • How can state funding be used most effectively
    to level the playing field and ensure that
    adequate/sufficient resources are available to
    provide the educational capacity needed for every
    student to have an opportunity to be successful?

37
Key Issues
  • How will communities and school boards make
    decisions that will ensure sufficient resources
    are available, and effectively invested,
    to support the educational capacity
    that is necessary and most effective to promote
    student achievement consistent with state and
    local academic standards?

38
WHAT IS PROGRESSon STATE FUNDING
  • Larger share of costs paid by state
  • Increase in State Funding/Student
  • Reduce dependency on property taxes
  • Close the equity gap
  • Ensure level of funding is adequate
  • Investing in what works
  • Stable and predictable Funding System
  • Does this improve the system for students?

39
FOR MORE INFORMATION
  • Ronald Cowell
  • The Education Policy and Leadership Center
  • 717-260-9900
  • cowell_at_eplc.org
  • www.eplc.org
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com