Overview of Picus and Associates Review of Maine - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 25
About This Presentation
Title:

Overview of Picus and Associates Review of Maine

Description:

Results of Equity Analysis Equity and Fiscal Neutrality Conclusions PowerPoint Presentation Major Strategies used by Picus And Associates in their Review 2 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:131
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: Jessica476
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Overview of Picus and Associates Review of Maine


1
Overview of Picus and Associates Review of
Maines K-12School Funding Formula
  • Presentation to
  • Blue Ribbon Education Commission
  • By David L. Silvernail
  • October 2016

2
Phases of Review Process
  1. Resolve 2011, Chapter 166 authorizes independent
    review of Maine Essential Programs and Services
    (EPS) Funding Formula.
  2. Contract Awarded to Picus and Associates.
  3. Picus et al issues Interim Report (April 2013)
    and Final Report (December 2013).
  4. Education Committee of Legislature creates
    commission to review Picus reports and conduct
    additional analyses. A final report of commission
    is issued in January 2015.

3
Major Components of Picus Review
  1. Equity analysis
  2. Adequacy of EPS
  3. Teacher compensation
  4. Regional Cost Adjustments
  5. Alternative measures of fiscal capacity
  6. Tribal funding

4
1. Results of Equity Analysis
  • Picus conducts analyses using a series of
    standard statistical finance measurements. These
    were
  • Fiscal Neutrality correlations
  • 1. revenues with property wealth and income
  • Equity coefficients
  • 1. Coefficient of Variation (CV)
  • 2. McLoone Index
  • 3. Verstegen Index

5
Equity and Fiscal Neutrality Conclusions
  • The Maine system, as designed, met (or very
    nearly) met all the strict benchmarksfor fiscal
    neutrality and equity.
  • ...the level of spending was not strongly
    related to the wealth of the SAU.
  • ...overall per pupil spending levels were
    generally equitable across all students.
  • We did find that the equity and fiscal
    neutrality of the system changed slightly for the
    worse when we include local revenue raised
    through property taxes above the level of EPS
    funding.
  • While of concern, overall equity statistics
    suggested greater equity than found in most other
    states.

6
2. Charges given for the development of the EPS
and Picus eb funding models
Cost of a Comprehensive Education in all Maine
Schools
Cost of education for achieving the Learning
Results in all Maine schools.
7
Major Strategies used by Picus And Associates in
their Review
  • Comparisons of Maine with other states.
  • Public input
  • Case studies of 5 schools
  • Identification of EB model and comparison to EPS

8
2. Comparison of EPS and Picus Funding
ModelsComponents and cost added in EB model
  • Disadvantaged youth 126,725,000()
  • Additional PK resources10,000,000()
  • Instructional coaches 62,500,000(N)
  • Additional PD days 28,250,000()
  • Substitute teachers 39,600,000()
  • Supervisory duties 22,000,000(N)
  • Key In additon to EPS resources NNew EB
    component

9
Comparison of EPS and Picus Funding
ModelsComponents and cost added in EB model
  • Central Administration43,850,000()
  • Regional Adjustment 44,750,000()
  • Small SAU Adjustmnt 47,250,000(N)
  • Assistant Principals 16,850,000(N)
  • Technology resources 17,850,000()
  • Student Activities 35,800,000()
  • Total Additional Costs of Picus
    Model495,350,000

10
Comparison of EPS and Picus Funding Models Major
EPS Components and cost removed from Picus model
  • LEP adjustment (-13,500,000)
  • Education Technicians(-39,150,000)
  • Library Technicians (-9,800,000)
  • Principals (-17,000,000)
  • Clerical staff (-20,000,000)
  • Instructional materials(-36,500,000)
  • Reduction of Costs in EPS-135,950,000

11
Total Cost of Picus model Relative to EPS and
Expenditures
  • After comparing the EPS and EB comprehensive
    models, Picus reported that the
  • Cost of Essential Programs and Services.
  • 2012-13 EPS Allocation1,880 billion
  • Cost of Picus comprehensive model
  • 2012-13 total cost2,240 billion
  • State and local education expenditures
  • 2012-13 total expenditures2,080 billion

12
Additional Costs of Picus Comprehensive Funding
Formula
  • Additional costs above EPS495,350,000
  • Reduction of costs in EPS -135,950,000
  • Costs of Picus Model above EPS359,400,000
  • Minus Amount if EPS Fully funded-51,000,000
  • Net Addnl Cost of Picus Model309,000,000

13
Picus Resources in Support of Disadvantaged Youth
  • Tutoring resources (1 FTE per 100 ED students)
  • Extended day programs (1 FTE per 120 ED students)
  • Summer school programs (1 FTE per 120 ED
    students)
  • Addnl. pupil support (1 FTE per 100 ED students)
  • LEP/ELL students (1 FTE per 100 ELL students)
  • Special education (Census model 1 FTE and 0.5
    FTE aide per 150 regular students)

14
Picus Model for Early Childhood and Kindergarten
Education
  • Picus model includes supports full-day preschool
    for 3 and 4-uear-olds, at least for children from
    families in poverty.
  • Resouces include 1 FTE teacher and 1 FTE
    instructional aide for every 15 preschool
    students.
  • Picus model incudes supports for full day
    kindergarten program for all students.
  • Resources include counting kindergarten students
    as 1.0 student in the formula, the same as EPS.

15
Picus Model for Instructional Coaches
  • Picus model adds 1 FTE instructional coach for
    every 200 students.

16
Picus Model for Professional Development
  • Adds resources for elective teachers, to support
    instruction and provide time for staff to engage
    in collaborative professional development.
  • Adds 5 additional professional development days
    to teacher school year.
  • PD training100 per pupil

17
Picus model for Central Administration Costs
  • Picus recommended 488 per pupil (vs. 215 in
    EPS) to support a prototypical 3900 student SAU
    central office, which includes
  • Nine (9) professional staff
  • Nine (9) clerical/secretarial staff
  • One (1) computer technician

18
Picus model for Small SAU Adjustments
  • Picus EB model based on SAUs with 3900 students.
  • Picus concluded their formula works for SAUs as
    small as 975 students.
  • For SAUs smaller than 975 students, Picus model
    adjusts staff ratios and resources.

19
3. Teacher CompensatioN Recommendations
  • 1. Replace current approach to regional
    adjustments to teacher salary levels and shift to
    either a Comparable Wage Index or a Hedonic Wage
    Index.
  • 2. Benchmark teacher salaries to salaries in
    Maine for jobs that are comparable to teaching,
    not to other states of the national average.
  • 3. Shift salary structure to one more strongly
    linked to effectiveness rather than years of
    experience and education.
  • (cont.)

20
Teacher CompensatioN Recommendations (cont.)
  • 4. Maine could provide additional incentives for
    hard to staff subjects or hard to staff schools.
  • 5. If Maine decided to create compensation
    incentives, they should be developed at the state
    level.

21
4. Recommendations for Regional Cost Adjustment
  • Keep regional cost adjustment component in
    formula.
  • Limitation of current cost adjustment is teacher
    salary differences 2004.
  • Switch to Comparable Wage Index (CWI) developed
    by NCES in 2011.

22
5. Alternative Measures of Fiscal Capacity
  • Possible solutions to High Property wealth/Low
    Per-capita Income SAUs
  • Assistance to school districts Multiplicative
    income factor for measuring SAUs relative
    wealth.
  • Assistance to Individual Taxpayers Expand
    current circuit breaker program.

23
Options to mitigate inequalities caused by local
revenue raising capacity
  • Add power equalization (a guaranteed tax base)
    component to funding formula.
  • Prohibit SAUs raising funds beyond certain limit.
  • Raising funding to all SAUs to match wealthy
    SAUs.
  • Leave inequalities in place.

24
6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Tribal
Funding
  • 3 Indian Education schools receive per pupil
    revenues substantially higher than state average.
  • The mix of state and federal funding for tribal
    schools set by 1980 Indian Claims Settlement Act.
  • Most Maine SAUs eligible apply for supplemental
    Title VII funds.
  • Maine should decide if different options should
    be developed for secondary students exiting the
    tribal schools.
  • Suggest Maine consider studying tribal schools
    spending patterns.

25
Sources
  • Picus et al reports
  • http//www.maine.gov/legis/opla/EPSReviewPart1Pic
    usandAssoc20294-1-2-13.pdf
  • http//www.maine.gov/legis/opla/EPSfundingPart202
    FinalReport.pdf
  • Education Committee MEPRI Commission Report
  • https//usm.maine.edu/sites/default/files/cepare/E
    PSCmmssnRprtF_1_9_2015Web.pdf
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com