1. 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

2. 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

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

4. -- 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

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

12. Funding per Student 2000-01 School Year
August 03, 1998
Funding per Student 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

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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 = CIS (use it or lose it)
4th grade = – 54.0 CIS “ “
4/6/2019

17. 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

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

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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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 X $27, = $ 1,972,662
4 certificated administrative staff X $50, = ,560
16.7 classified staff X $26, = ,937
Mandatory Benefits
Certificated staff - ($1,972, ,560) X = ,661
Classified - $435,937 X % = ,950
Insurance Benefits
50 certificated staff X $ X 12 months = ,162
16.7 classified staff X X $ X 12 months = ,922
Nonemployee Related Costs
50 certificated staff X $8, = ,950
TOTAL ALLOCATION $ 3,704,803
4/6/2019

23. 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

24. 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

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

26. 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

27. Free & Reduced Price Eligibilities
Statewide Average %
King County Average 22.66%
Issaquah Average %
Seattle %
Bellevue %
4/6/2019

28. Presentation Topic
Local Levy
4/6/2019

29. 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

30. 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

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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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
4/6/2019

38. 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

39. Ranked By Enrollment Size
4/6/2019

40. Ranked by Per Student Total Revenue
4/6/2019

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

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

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