Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction August 03, 1998 Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction School Finance Overview Prepared for Issaquah PTA November 7, 2002 Issaquah, Washington 4/6/2019

Presenter Information Presenters: Mike Bigelow Associate Superintendent for Budget and School Business Services Calvin W. Brodie, Director, School Apportionment and Financial Services 4/6/2019

Presentation Topics Constitutional Requirement State Funding for Education Federal Funding Local Levy Funding More Information 4/6/2019

-- Overview of State Funding -- What Is the State’s Responsibility? August 03, 1998 -- Overview of State Funding -- What Is the State’s Responsibility? Washington State Constitution Article IX Section 1. “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.” Section 2. “The legislature shall provide a general and uniform system of public schools . . . and such . . . normal and technical schools as may hereafter be established.” 4/6/2019

Washington’s School Finance System Is a legislative response to three court decisions interpreting the “paramount duty” clause of the state constitution. These court decisions, in 1977 ,1983 and 1988 described the state’s duty under the constitution. 4/6/2019

Seattle Lawsuit - Doran I After a levy failure in 1976, Seattle School District sued the state alleging that the state was not meeting it’s constitutional duty to make ample provision for education. On January 14, 1977 Judge Doran issued a declaratory judgement finding that: State funding was insufficient to fund a basic program of education; and The legislature must define and fully fund a program of basic education through regular and dependable tax sources and could not rely on local excess levies for that funding. 4/6/2019

Doran II and IIB Decisions Subsequent decisions by Judge Doran expanded and clarified the state’s responsibility for basic education. The 1983 decision included the following categorical programs to the state’s basic responsibilities: Special Education - Bilingual Education Remediation (LAP) - Pupil Transp. (some students) The 1988 decision: Generally supported state funding for special education based on averages; Concluded that some form of “safety net” was needed to supplement special education funding for districts demonstrating need. 4/6/2019

Funding Principles The funding formula is not cast in concrete; it is the continuing obligation of the Legislature to review, define and fund basic education. Local school levies may be allowed as long as they enrich programs outside of the legislative definition of basic education and are not used to reduce the state’s obligation to fund basic education. 4/6/2019

2001–2003 Biennium State General Fund Budget August 03, 1998 2001–2003 Biennium State General Fund Budget ** This chart includes state general fund only. It does not include the I-728/ Student Achievement Fund Appropriations of $391 million. 4/6/2019

August 03, 1998 State Average 2000-01 School Year School District General Fund Revenues Source: Summary of All School District’s F-196 4/6/2019

Issaquah SD -2000-01 School Year District General Fund Revenues . Source: Issaquah School District’s F-196 4/6/2019

Funding per Student 2000-01 School Year August 03, 1998 Funding per Student 2000-01 School Year State Average King County Average Issaquah SD Average State Revenues 5,024 4,786 4,649 Local Tax 1,056 1,381 1,123 Federal 573 431 161 Other 337 459 478 Total $6,991 $7,056 $6,410 4/6/2019

Presentation Topic Overview of K-12 State Funding The Details 4/6/2019

General Apportionment Basic Funding Concepts August 03, 1998 General Apportionment Basic Funding Concepts Enrollment Staff Units (I.E Teachers, Administrators & Aides) Salaries & Benefits Nonemployee Related Costs (NERC) State General Apportionment Allocation 4/6/2019

Factor # 1: Basic Education Enrollment August 03, 1998 Factor # 1: Basic Education Enrollment Student FTE based on “seat time” Grades K–3: 4 hours per day = 1.0 FTE Grades 4–12: 5 hours per day = 1.0 FTE (Enrolled hours–not attendance) (Nine monthly count dates–first school day of each month) Alternative Learning Experience, Work-based Learning, and Running Start, Provide Exceptions to Seat Time FTE Rule. 4/6/2019

Factor # 2 Legislative Staffing Ratios August 03, 1998 Factor # 2 Legislative Staffing Ratios 1,000 FTE student generate: 4.0 Certificated Administrative Staff (CAS) eg Superintendents, Principals etc. 46.0 Certificated Instructional Staff (CIS) eg Teachers, Program Supervisors 16.7 Classified Staff - eg Business office, classroom aides. Enhanced staffing (per 1,000 FTEs): K–3 FTEs = 49.0 - 54.0 CIS (use it or lose it) 4th grade = 46.0 – 54.0 CIS “ “ 4/6/2019

Factor # 3 Instructional Staff – Salary Funding The state determines the funding provided to each certificated position based upon the experience and education level of the staff hired. This is captured in a staff mix factor. District wide average mix factor determines the state funding provided for each funded certificated staff position in the district. 4/6/2019

Staff Mix The staff mix factor is a five-decimal number between 1.00000 and 1.99958 that quantifies the educational and experience level of instructional staff of the district. 1.00000 would equal a new teacher with no experience 1.99958 would equal a teacher with a Phd and 15 years experience 4/6/2019

Staff Mix Factors and Base Salary (2001-02) State Funded Staff Mix Base Salary State Funded Salary Statewide Average 1.60510 $27,467 $44,087 Issaquah 1.56129 $42,884 Lake Washington 1.60719 $27,605 $44,366 Seattle 1.55096 $28,016 $43,452 Bellevue 1.49796 $27,542 $41,257 4/6/2019

Compensation Certificated staff are typically compensated as follows: Base Contract – typically tied to state funding schedule. Supplemental Contracts for additional time, responsibilities and incentives (TRI). Issaquah provides a supplemental contract named “ARC.” The state assumes No responsibility for supplemental contracts. These are typically funded from local levy. 4/6/2019

Why do some district get more state funding than others? Salary base differences. Different levels of staff experience and education. Low test scores affect LAP funding. Levy Equalization funding. Different levels of students participating in: Bilingual Programs Special Education Vocational Education Transportation 4/6/2019

2001–2002 General Apportionment Example August 03, 1998 2001–2002 General Apportionment Example 1,000 Students Staff Units and Salaries 46 certificated instructional staff X 1.56129 X $27,467 = $ 1,972,662 4 certificated administrative staff X $50,890 = 203,560 16.7 classified staff X $26,104 = 435,937 Mandatory Benefits Certificated staff - ($1,972,662 + 203,560) X 10.74 = 233,661 Classified - $435,937 X 12.61% = 54,950 Insurance Benefits 50 certificated staff X $455.27 X 12 months = 273,162 16.7 classified staff X 1.15 X $455.27 X 12 months = 104,922 Nonemployee Related Costs 50 certificated staff X $8,519 = 425,950 TOTAL ALLOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,704,803 4/6/2019

Strengths of the Current System August 03, 1998 Strengths of the Current System Recognized by a General Accounting Office study as one of the more equitable state funding systems in the nation. Recognizes cost difference between school districts: Salary differences based upon the education and experience of staff hired. Small schools Provides enhanced funding for special need populations: Students with disabilities (Special Education) Second language students (Bilingual Education) Low achieving students (Learning Assistance Program) 4/6/2019

Accountability for Inputs Not Outputs August 03, 1998 Accountability for Inputs Not Outputs Must maintain 46/1000 certificated instructional staff. Must use K–4 enhancement for K–4 staffing. Must pay minimum salaries for beginning teachers. Must not exceed state average allocated salary for average base salaries of certificated staff (salary compliance). Must use state accounting and program structure. 4/6/2019

Federal Funding To Schools 2001-02 Top 5 Programs Statewide $ (Millions) IDEA (Special Education) 159.0 Title I 142.9 USDA – Food Services 113.3 Impact Aid 52.3 Title II(Improving Teacher Quality) 46.3 4/6/2019

Federal Funds -Allocations Generally Title I and Title II funds are allocated to districts in part based upon poverty factors obtained from the US Census Bureau. IDEA and Impact Aid is based upon specific student populations and counts. USDA funding is based upon free & reduced price eligibilities. 4/6/2019

Free & Reduced Price Eligibilities Statewide Average 30.85% King County Average 22.66% Issaquah Average 4.91% Seattle 40.24% Bellevue 13.25% 4/6/2019

Presentation Topic Local Levy 4/6/2019

Local Levy Local levies are for enhancements to the state basic education programs provided. IE – extracurricular activities, enhanced class offerings, additional duties for teachers. Requires voter approval: 60% supermajority required and 40% of votes cast in last general election. For 2002, 22 districts did not have a local levy. 4/6/2019

School District Levies Prior to 1977 there was no limit on the amounts that school districts could raise from local levies In 1977 the legislature passed the Levy Lid Act, which limited school district M&O levies to 10 percent of a levy base and set a four year time limit for districts to get to that level. In subsequent sessions the legislature raised the limit to its current 24% of the levy base. Last changed in 1999. 4/6/2019

The Basic Levy Components Levy Base Levy Lid Percent 4/6/2019

Levy Base What is Included? The levy base is generally the state and federal revenues a district receives in the previous school year. The levy base is one of the limiting factors for levies. 4/6/2019

Levy Lid Percent A district may raise a levy equal to the levy base times this percentage. Statewide rate is 24% 91 districts have “grand-fathered” levy authority percentages up to 34%. 4/6/2019

Levy Lid Percent . State Average 25.39% King County Avg. 27.32% Mercer Island 33.67% Tukwila 33.54% Seattle 32.97% Bellevue 30.66% Shoreline 27.93% Issaquah 24.97% 4/6/2019

Levy Base Per Student King County Avg. $ 5,319 Mercer Island 4,792 $ 5,319 Mercer Island 4,792 Tukwila 5,341 Seattle 6,047 Bellevue 5,080 Shoreline 5,284 Issaquah 4,845 4/6/2019

Levy Revenue per District Per Student King County Avg. $1,381 Seattle 1,958 Tukwila 1,718 Mercer Island 1,563 Bellevue 1,511 Shoreline 1,450 Issaquah 1,123 4/6/2019

August 03, 1998 Want More Info? - Organization and Financing of Washington Public Schools Contains overview of school finance in Washington State including: Legal history Description of sources of funding Detailed descriptions of funding formulas Updated biennially (last update January 2002) Select “Publications” from http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/. 4/6/2019

Web site Information http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/ Monthly Reports Apportionment Enrollment Annual Reports F-195 Budget F-196 Annual Financial Statements Publications Organization and Financing of Washington Public Schools Manuals & Handbooks Bulletins Rules Current WACS Proposed Revisions 4/6/2019

Ranked By Enrollment Size 2000-01 4/6/2019

Ranked by Per Student Total Revenue 2000-01 4/6/2019

Ranked By Per Student State Revenues 2000-01 4/6/2019

Ranked By Per Student Local Levy Revenues 2000-01 4/6/2019

Ranked by Per Student Federal Revenues 2000-01 4/6/2019