1. Vocational and Skill Center Program Funding Priorities
Fall Conference
October 10, 2016

2. Questions to Answer
How do vocational and skill center programs generate an allocation in the state formula?
Why change the definition of a 1.0 annual average full-time equivalent student?
What is the potential impact to vocational education and skill centers?
What are Superintendent Dorn’s funding proposals for vocational education and skill centers?

3. Q. How do vocational and skill center programs generate an allocation in the state formula?

4. State Funding Formula — Vocational
Vocational Education
Middle
High
Staff Type
Apportionment Report
1191MSCTE
1191CTE
Class Size
26.57
CIS
Per 1,000 AAFTE Student Ratios
Other ESA Staff
3.07
Per 1.0 AAFTE Student Ratios
School Level Administration * *
CAS
Central Office Administration * *
School Level Classified
CLS
Central Office Classified
Materials, Supplies, and Operating Costs
$1,431.65
N/A
*An enhancement percentage is added to the allocation for staff identified with an asterisk above.

5. State Funding Formula — Skill Center
Skill Center Staffing
High
Staff Type
Apportionment Report
1191SC
Class Size
22.76
CIS
Per 1,000 AAFTE Student Ratios
Other ESA Staff
3.41
Per 1.0 AAFTE Student Ratios
School Level Administration *
CAS
Central Office Administration *
School Level Classified
CLS
Central Office Classified
Per Student MSOC
$1,272.99
N/A
*An enhancement percentage is added to the allocation for staff identified with an asterisk above.

6. Q. Why change the definition of a 1
Q. Why change the definition of a 1.0 annual average full-time equivalent student?

7. RCW 28A (13)(c)
States in part: “The definition of a full-time equivalent student shall be determined by rules of the superintendent of public instruction,...The definition shall be based on the minimum instructional hour offerings required under RCW28A ”

8. RCW 28A (2)(a)
As paraphrased: Beginning in the school year at least 1,080 instructional hours for grades 9-12, and at least 1,000 instructional hours in grades 1-8, all of which may be calculated using a district-wide annual average of instructional hours over grades 1-12.

9. SSB 6552 Instructional Hours Increase
Starting with the 2014–15 school year, approximately $96 million was allocated in SSB 6552 targeted towards high school students only.
This funding did not flow through to vocational and skill center programs.

10. Definition of a 1.0 Student AAFTE
Instructional hours requirement can be met by averaging instructional hours across grades 1–12. (Average must be 1,027 hours.)
OSPI’s proposed rules moves the definition of a 1.0 student AAFTE to 1,000 hours.
These proposed rules must be approved by the legislature before implementation.

11. Q. What is the potential impact to vocational and skill center programs?

12. Example of Impact – Vocational
Student enrolled in one hour of vocational instruction, and five hours of general education instruction all year.
This results in a statewide average reduction of 10% of the claimable AAFTE.
Hours in 1.0 AAFTE
Hours per Day
CTE FTE
Gen. Ed. FTE
AAFTE
900 hours 5h
0.2
0.8
1.0
1,000 hours
5h 33min
0.18
0.82

13. Example of Impact — Skill Center
Student enrolled in three hours of skill center instruction, and three hours of general education instruction throughout the year.
This results in a statewide average reduction of 10% of claimable AAFTE.
Hours in 1.0 AAFTE
Hours per Day
Skill Center FTE
Gen. Ed. FTE
AAFTE
900 hours 5h
0.6
1.2
1,000 hours
5h 33min
0.54
1.08

14. What does this really mean?
($48,476,000) $0
If nothing is done to increase vocational and skill center allocations, then the programs will lose a combined $48.5 million as estimated for the 2017–18 school year.
This calculation is based on caseload forecast council vocational and skill center enrollment and current law budget drivers for the 2017–18 school year.

15. Q. What are Superintendent Dorn’s funding proposals for vocational education and skill centers?

16. Dorn’s Funding Proposals
Vocational and Skill Center Instructional Hours Hold Harmless
and
Vocational and Skill Center Funding

17. Instructional Hours Hold Harmless
This request is specifically crafted to protect and hold harmless the vocational and skill center programs from losses in funding related solely to the change in the definition of a 1.0 student annual average FTE.

18. What is the objective?
Pull the levers in the funding model to create a cost neutral impact to vocational and skill center programs due to the instructional hours shift.
Focus on additional staff allocations.
Staff allocations will increase by policy decisions around compensation, while MSOC growth is limited to inflation.

19. Proposed Solution — Step #1
Allocate the other CIS staff factor for vocational and skill center programs at the same rate as the prototypical high school (600 Student FTE).
Prototypical HS Per 1,000 FTE
(3.18/600)*1,000 = 5.3 Other CIS Staff
Current Law
Vocational 3.07 per 1,000
Skill Center 3.41 per 1,000
Librarian
Counselor
Nurse
Social Worker
Psychologist
Total
0.523
2.539
0.096
0.015
0.007
3.18

20. Proposed Solution — Step #2
Provide an allocation for teachers based on an assumed class size of for vocational programs and for skill center programs.
Class Size
Vocational
Skill Center
Current Law
26.57
22.76
Proposed
22.96
19.63

21. Fiscal Impact of Hold Harmless
($48,500,000)
Total Investment $48,583,000
$83,000* $0
*Bold numbers represent net new dollars.
Estimated fiscal impact for 2017–18 school year is $83,000.
While the total investment is $48,583,000 the net impact from baseline is an increase of only $83,000.

22. Dorn’s Funding Proposals
Vocational and Skill Center Instructional Hours Hold Harmless
and
Vocational and Skill Center Funding

23. SSB 6552 Instructional Hours Increase
Starting with the 2014–15 school year, approximately $96 million was allocated in SSB 6552 targeted towards high school students only.
This funding did not flow through to vocational and skill center programs.
General education funding increased at a faster rate than vocational and skill center funding.

24. Vocational and Skill Center Funding
This request helps to restore the vocational and skill center funding enhancement to more historical values.
Proposes funding increases in both staffing and materials, supplies, and operating costs (MSOC).
Is presented to be solely considered, and is not in any way dependent on the hold harmless proposal.

25. Vocational MSOC Expenditures
State Resource to Allocation Model is a required element of SHB 2776.
The State Resource to Allocation Model can be found here:
School Year
CTE MSOC Allocation
CTE MSOC Expenditures
Per Student Expenditures
2011–12
$78,843,127
$44,734,709
$757
2012–13
$83,140,906
$48,002,046
$782
2013–14
$85,463,510
$47,293,507
$774
2014–15
$88,371,246
$54,555,032
$875

26. Proposed Vocational MSOC (Part 1)
Step 1: Actual costs adjusted for inflation.
Step 2: Compare adjusted 2017–18 value to general education MSOC in the areas of direct expense (technology, curriculum, other supplies, and professional development).
School Year
2014–15
2015–16
2016–17
2017–18
Actual Costs
$875.07
$885.60
$895.31
$911.43
Inflation
1.2%
1.1%
1.8%
General Ed Allocation
Voc. Adjusted Costs
Multiplier
$591.49
$911.43
1.54

27. Proposed Vocational MSOC (Part 2)
Step 3: Apply the multiplier to the total per pupil general education MSOC allocation in current law for the 2017–18 school year.
Proposed Vocational MSOC allocation is $1, per 1.0 AAFTE.
Note: This does not shift portions of MSOC out of vocational education over to general education, thus indirects stay at 15%.
MSOC
Total General Ed Allocation
Vocational Multiplier
Vocational Allocation
Per Pupil
$1,245.38
1.54
$1,917.89

28. What about Skill Center MSOC?
Skill Center MSOC should be 2014–15 school year actual expenditures adjusted for inflation.
Proposed Skill Center MSOC allocation is $2, per 1.0 AAFTE.
School Year
2014–15
2015–16
2016–17
2017–18
Actual Costs
$2,167.17
$2,193.18
$2,217.30
$2,257.27
Inflation
1.2%
1.1%
1.8%

29. Other ESA Staff Factor
Allocate the other CIS staff factor for vocational and skill center programs at the same rate as the prototypical high school (600 Student FTE).
Prototypical HS Per 1,000 FTE
(3.18/600)*1,000 = 5.3 Other CIS Staff
Current Law
Vocational 3.07 per 1,000
Skill Center 3.41 per 1,000
Librarian
Counselor
Nurse
Social Worker
Psychologist
Total
0.523
2.539
0.096
0.015
0.007
3.18

30. Principals/Vocational Directors
Move the allocation for principals out of vocational programs back to general education (Activity 23 – Principals Office not open for vocational programs).
Provide an allocation (CIS) at a rate of 2.32 per 1,000 student FTE for a vocational program director.

31. Lower Class Sizes
Provide an allocation for teachers based on an assumed class size of for vocational programs, and for skill center programs starting with the 2019–20 school year.
Class Size
Vocational
Skill Center
Current Law
26.57
22.76
Proposed
19.72
16.00

32. Itemized Fiscal Impact
The total fiscal impact of this proposal for the 2017–18 school year by proposal element is shown below.
Proposal Element
Impact in Millions
Other ESA to 5.3 per 1,000
$13.0
Vocational Director/
BEA Principal
$12.0
MSOC
$37.0
Class Size
$0.0
Total
$62.0

33. Preferred Option
$62,000,000* $0
*Bold numbers represent net new dollars.
If definition of 1.0 student FTE does not change, the funding proposal generates $62 million for 2017–18 school year.

34. Fiscal Impact of FTE Definition
$62,000,000*
($48,500,000) $0
*Bold numbers represent net new dollars.
Estimated fiscal impact for 2017–18 school year is a loss of approximately $48.5 million.

35. Full Funding (Reduced FTE)
If the full funding package was implemented after the instructional hours shift, then it would be based on 10% less FTE and would generate 10% less funding.
Scenario
Funding Generated
(in millions)
Student FTE equals 900 hours
$62.0
Less 10%
-$6.2
Student FTE equals 1,000 hours
$55.8

36. Secondary Option
$62,000,000*
($48,500,000)
$83,000*
$44,583,000*
Total Investment $48,583,000 $0
Total Investment $44,500,000
*Bold numbers represent net new dollars.
Increasing the Other ESA allocation to 5.3 per 1,000 generates about $11.3 million in school year 2017–18 in both proposals, assuming the definition of a 1.0 student FTE changes.
Funding proposal of $55.8 million less $11.3 million equals $44.5 million of net new funding on top of the hold harmless.
The combined total of the two, if the definition of a 1.0 student FTE changes, is approximately $44.6 million.

37. Option of Last Resort
($48,500,000)
Total Investment $48,583,000
$83,000* $0
*Bold numbers represent net new dollars.
Estimated fiscal impact for 2017–18 school year is $83,000.
While the total investment is $48,583,000 the net impact from baseline is an increase of only $83,000.

38. Per Pupil Funding Impacts
Proposal
Per Student Funding Rate
Full Funding Proposal – Vocational
$7,328.89
Current Law – Vocational
$6,540.55
Estimated Per Pupil Increase
$788.34
Proposal
Per Student Funding Rate
Full Funding Proposal – Skill Center
$8,007.52
Current Law – Skill Center
$6,927.34
Estimated Per Pupil Increase
$1,080.18

39. Hold Harmless Per Pupil – Vocational
Proposal
Per Student Funding Rate
Hold Harmless Proposal – Vocational
$7,268.51
Current Law – Vocational
$6,540.55
Estimated Per Pupil Increase
$727.96
Percent Increase Over Current Law
11.13
Scenario
Student FTE
Per Student
Total Funding
Current Law
1,000
$6,540.55
$6,540,550
Hold Harmless
900
$7,268.51
$6,541,659

40. Hold Harmless Per Pupil – Skill Center
Proposal
Per Student Funding Rate
Hold Harmless Proposal – Skill Center
$7,869.63
Current Law – Skill Center
$6,927.34
Estimated Per Pupil Increase
$942.29
Percent Increase Over Current Law
13.06%
Scenario
Student FTE
Per Student
Total Funding
Current Law
1,000
$6,927.34
$6,927,340
Hold Harmless
900
$7,869.63
$7,082,667

41. Legislative Session 2017
It is important to not come out of session farther behind than you go into session.
Restoration of the vocational and the skill center funding enhancements are critical to delivering programs for generating career ready graduates.
Properly executed increases in compensation allocations should be an important focus for all in the education community.

42. T.J. Kelly Director- SAFS 360-725-6301 thomas.kelly@k12.wa.us
Questions?
T.J. Kelly Director- SAFS