School Apportionment Hot Topics WASBO

 K-4 Elimination  LEA – Untouched!?!?  Average Daily Attendance  Full Day Kindergarten  Salaries › Freeze vs. › 3% cuts  High Poverty Class Size  Hold Harmless  June 30 th.  National Board Bonus  Safety Net Funds Legislative Topics

 Both budgets eliminate this funding  Savings $162.7M for staffing and $23.9M from reduced MSOC. K-4 Class Size

 K-3 smaller class size for high poverty schools.  Minor revisions made for CTE and Skills Center to add units for classified and administrative staffing.  MSOC inflated by IPD to a higher value than in the budget. Proposed Changes for Prototype

 As expected, a change to the Admin factor and breakdown between CAS & CLS.  Hold Harmless for transition changes is being proposed. Proposed Changes for Prototype

 No proposed cuts by either House or Senate.(so far)  Two bills changing levy calculation proposed: › HB 1815 › HB 1814  Levy & LEA Workgroup › Report Due June 30 th. LEA & LEVY

 This bill would create another “ghost” amount in the calculation of the LEVY base to include per pupil reductions in funding since the school year.  This would apply towards the 2011 through 2017 levy calculations.  The base year for health benefits is  Bill reintroduced April 26th HB 1815 SB 5652 Levy Base Revision

 This bill would add the Edu-Jobs funding into the levy base for the 2011 and 2012 Levy calculations for district that approved levy prior to April 30 th,  Effectively double counts Edu-Jobs $$ in the 2011 levy base.  Reintroduced April 26 th. HB 1814SB 5651 EduJobs in Levy Base

 Initially proposed in Senate Budget  Proposal dropped.  Would have required reductions in the Student FTE based upon a district’s unexcused absence rate before calculation of state funding.  Would have recognized $92.4M in savings.  Depreciation dollars shifted to make up savings. Average Daily Attendance

 House funding level increased to 21%.  Eligibility is based upon a three year measure of school poverty.  Law states once eligible always eligible.  These changes do not represent much of a change in current programs. Due to growth the original crop of schools under 20% now serve 20.78%.  Change affects future school site entrants into FDK. FDK – House Proposal

 No funded salary increases will be provided for experience or education after the S-275 reporting. › Salary compliance was not repealed. › OSPI dilemma - How to implement?? To report or not to report? House Salary Proposal

 Reduce funded salary 3% › Easy for OSPI to implement. › Will districts have to reduce CIS base in contracts? › Salary compliance was not repealed.  Provides $5M annually to ensure that employees being paid less than $30,000 on a 1.0 FTE basis were not cut. ($15 hour)  Savings $212.9M Senate Salary Proposal

 Both the House and Senate propose an enhancement to K-3 class-size for high poverty schools.  Both define as greater than 50% based upon a three year measure. › House reduces to and labels this “basic ed.” $25M › Senate reduces to but does not consider this basic ed. $64.3M High Poverty Class-Size for K-3

 The new LAP formula does not continue the high concentration / bilingual enhancement.  Resulting reduction is $24.5 Million.  FFTWG and QEC both recommended a hold harmless for this transition. Hold Harmless

 Both the House and Senate propose an aggregated hold harmless (HH) calculation.  This calculation combines the conversion changes in Basic Ed, Bilingual, Highly Capable, and LAP, and provides a HH as the net change.  HH funding is not considered LAP.  Would be paid under account Hold Harmless – “In Total”

 As proposed: The calculation for HH does not incorporate any changes for benefit rates.  The House includes the K-3 reduction in the calculation and the change in MSOC. Provides $19.2M  The Senate does not. And provides $41.5M Hold Harmless

 A portion of the June 30 th apportionment payment will be paid on July 1 st (Friday).  Will not affect State and Federal grant Payments.  Limited loan funds available.  District must apply to be considered by May 25 th.  Bill 1354 would allow up to $253M to be delayed at Governor’s discretion. June 30 th Proposed Payment Delay

 District must complete packet.  District must be current on all grant claims.  Districts must have borrowed all available funds from CPF, TVF funds.  Must submit a County Treasurer statement that the County is unable to help district with loan, interest bearing warrants or other mechanisms. June 30 th Loan Request

 Discussion circulating on setting up bi- monthly apportionment payments. Bill expected to be introduced revising RCW 28A.510.  The bill would require half (??) of state apportionment would be paid on the 25 th with the other half being paid on the 10 th.  It is anticipated that OSPI would continue to make the payments of all federal and state grants on the 25 th. Bi-Monthly Payments

 Expected to be tagged onto  As discussed this would not be enacted until the school year.  If enacted this would be forevermore. Bi-Monthly Payments

 Both Budgets:  Rates change for first year teachers to 60% of annual bonus.  Challenging schools??  Available only for three years following initial NBCT certification.  To be paid annually only in July. National Board Bonus

Both Budgets:  Shall only be paid in August at year end.  Current discussion focus on a single SNET meeting to consider applications in June.  District notification would target June 30 th. Safety Net Funds

Various Other Areas Prototype - Planning Time ALE Running Start SAFS Rules Changes Systems

Lots of confusion around the planning time factor in the budget.  The budgeted elementary factor of % for planning time creates a increase factor for teachers of  The budgeted middle and secondary planning time of 16.67% creates an increase factor for teachers of Prototype - Planning Time Factor

Elementary Middle High (1) Prototypical Enrollment (2) Class Size (Assume K-3 for elementary) (3) # Teachers Required with no Planning (1) / (2) (4) Assumed Instructional Day (5a) Planning Time (assumed) (5b) Budget Bill Assumption (5a) / (4)13.42%16.67% (6) Assumed instructional time per teacher (4)*(1- (14) ) (7) # class hours (3) * (4) (8) Number of Teachers Required With Planning Time Inc (7) / (6) (9) Staffing factor to be used for planning (8) / (3) Planning Time Walk Through.

Alternative Learning Experience Programs Reduced Funding Revised Rules Audit Issues

 Both budgets propose cuts to ALE › House proposes funding at 80.1% › Senate proposes funding at 90%  Both budgets adopt a version of OSPI’s proposed rule change to prohibit direct payments to students & parents.  Senate saves $25.8M ALE Legislative Changes

 If enacted, how will the funding reduction appear on apportionment reports?  Where will student FTE come from? ALE Legislative Changes

 ALE is not necessarily an alternative high school.  An alternative high school may have both seat-time and independent components.  ALE is independent learning time claimed for funding - subject to the rules under WAC ALE – Definition Review

 These changes were performed independent of any legislative action.  Rule hearing was held April 26,  This rule change updates district requirements and responsibilities, defines the key terms related to ALE, and addresses a number of issues that were highlighted by the work group. ALE Rules - WAC

 High-lited changes: › Prohibition of any payment, stipend or reimbursement to students or parents. › Districts must include students enrolled GT 0.80 FTE in assessment. › Stronger standards for direct personal contact between student and Teacher. › Approval of learning materials consistent with 28A › Clearer language regarding required documentation. ALE Rules - WAC

 SAO has audited several large on-line/ALE programs. Audit reports are stating several recoveries above $1 million.  Typical errors are: › Failure to develop appropriate learning plan. › Failure to develop and document reasonable contact between teacher and student. › Lack of documentation for teacher performing monthly review of student progress. › These errors reflect a casual attitude about district/teacher responsibility for these programs. ALE Audits

Running Start Legislative and Contemporary Issues

 Historically has been 2.0 FTE with a limitation of 1.0 at HS and 1.0 in College  Both budget bills reduce this overall to1.2 FTE.  Savings projected at $5.8M Running Start Super FTE

 Many comments received about contracting for Running Start in the high school.  One agreement shared with OSPI, requires school district staff to provide program staffing while the college gets 93% of funding.  The original 93% funding assumed program was provided on the college campus by college faculty.  Districts may negotiate with the college for reimbursement for district staff and facility usage.  Districts may refuse to provide program. Issue: Contracting for Running Start in the High School

Key changes in 2010/11  – Principals may no longer receive NBCT bonus.  – Defines student residence.  – Shared leave between school districts.  Education programs in Jails Rule Changes

 School Number – to be edited against.  New numbering being created for non- student locations for staff reporting.  Separate reporting for TRI contracts for innovative activities.  Duty code changes to better align to the Prototype staffing.  Freezing Staff Mix?? S-275 System Changes

 F-203 will be programmed and released after the legislature passes a budget.  Unfortunately, school district budget timelines may prompt action before this. SAFS News Systems – F-203

 F-203X has been available since January.  As of April 26 th. 192 Districts have created 404 F-203X estimates.  Highest number of estimates for one district = 14.  Most optimistic named estimate - “Final Budget”  103 have not created any estimate. This is concerning. F-203X System Usage