1. Fair School Funding Plan A comprehensive, fair school funding plan for Ohio
Slide
Sponsors: State Representatives Bob Cupp & John Patterson

2. Base Cost Distribution Add-ons
Poverty, Preschool, Special Education, Gifted, English Learners, Career Tech Education, STEM, Open Enrollment, Charter/Community Schools, Vouchers, Transportation, Educational Service Centers
Distribution
Jenni to introduce Mike and highlight the three again

3. Fair Funding Plan Distribution
The Fair Funding Plan Distribution Formula is equitable, untangles complex interrelationships among districts where one district’s funding is tied to another, and recognizes diversity between districts.
Mike -

4. The Challenge - Distribution
Current Local Share of Funding
60% to 100% - PROPERTY VALUES
0 to 40% - BASED ON RESIDENT INCOME
Mike -

5. State Share Index Valuation Index
DISTRIBUTION
State Share Index
Valuation Index
District's three-year average valuation / District's total ADM) / (the statewide three-year average valuation for school districts with a total ADM greater than zero / the statewide total ADM)
Mike -

6. State Share Index Median Income Index
DISTRIBUTION
State Share Index
Median Income Index
The district's median Ohio adjusted gross income / the median of the median Ohio adjusted gross income of all districts statewide with a total ADM greater than zero
Mike -

7. State Share Index Income Index
DISTRIBUTION
State Share Index
Income Index
(The district's median income index X 0.5 ) + [(the three-year average federal adjusted gross income of the school district's residents / the district's formula ADM for fiscal year 2017) / (the three-year average federal adjusted gross income of all districts statewide with a formula ADM for fiscal year 2017 greater than zero / the statewide formula ADM for fiscal year 2017)] X 0.5
Mike -

8. State Share Index Wealth Index
DISTRIBUTION
State Share Index
Wealth Index
(1) If the district's income index is less than the district's valuation index and the district's median income index is less than or equal to 1.5, then the district's wealth index shall be equal to [( 0.4 X the district's income index) + ( 0.6 X the district's valuation index)].
(2) If the district's income index does not meet both of the conditions described in (1) of this section, then the district's wealth index shall be equal to the district's valuation index.
Mike -

9. DISTRIBUTION
State Share Index
(1) If the district's wealth index is less than or equal to 0.35, then the district's state share index shall be equal to 0.90.
(2) If the district's wealth index is greater than 0.35 but less than or equal to 0.90, then the district's state share index shall be equal to { 0.40 X [( the district's wealth index) / 0.55 ]}
Mike -

10. DISTRIBUTION
State Share Index
(3) If the district's wealth index is greater than 0.90 but less than 1.8, then the district's state share index shall be equal to { 0.45 X [( the district's wealth index) / 0.9 ]}
(4) If the district's wealth index is greater than or equal to 1.8, then the district's state share index shall be equal to 0.05.
Mike -

11. The Charge - Distribution
(Lesser of 3-Year Average Valuation or most recent Valuation) / (K-12 Headcount Enrollment) x (2.25% x 60%)
(Lesser of 3-Year Average FAGI or most recent FAGI) / (K-12 Headcount Enrollment) x (2.25% x 20%)
(Most Recent Median FAGI) X (Most Recent Number of Tax Returns) / (K-12 Headcount Enrollment) x (2.25% x 20%)
Mike -

12. Distribution DISTRIBUTION
Determination of Local Share of Funding-Property
Mike S
The first step is determining valuation per pupil

13. Distribution Determination of Local Share of Funding-Income
Mike S
Secondly we calculate the income capacity per pupil.

14. Determination of Local Share of Funding-Total
DISTRIBUTION
Distribution
Determination of Local Share of Funding-Total
The state share of funding in each district would be the per pupil base cost amount calculated for the district less the local share shown above
Mike S

15. Benefits Associated with the proposed model
DISTRIBUTION
Distribution
Benefits Associated with the proposed model
All Districts calculated in the same way
Each district is handled independent of statewide averages
Accounts for enrollment changes
Less dislocating with annual recalculations
Increased Stability
84% of districts would be formula funded
Mike S

16. funded at their calculated formula amounts The Formula Doesn’t Work
18% of Districts
Current
funded at their calculated formula amounts
The Formula Doesn’t Work
Mike S

17. funded at their calculated formula amounts
With New Fair Funding Plan
84% of Districts
New Plan
Mike S
Total districts 610
136 districts in 2020 on guarantee
100 district in 2021 on guarantee
funded at their calculated formula amounts
New Plan: 84% of Districts on Formula by 2021

18. SIMULATION RESULTS
An estimated 510 districts would receive additional funding in the upcoming biennium
An estimated 100 districts would receive the same amount of funding as they received in FY 2019
PLEASE REMEMBER THE SIMULATIONS ARE DONE USING ESTIMATED VALUATIONS, INCOMES, AND ENROLLMENTS
Tell county story

19. SIMULATION RESULTS
There are five general factors that influence funding in this model relative to FY 2019 and the current funding model
For districts with offsetting factors, it will vary from district-to-district as to which factor matters most
Tell county story

20. SIMULATION RESULTS
Because of minimum allocations within the base cost funding model, small districts will generally do better than under the current model
Districts currently impacted by capped funding also generally have more positive results
When looking at data by capacity quintiles, districts that currently get lower allocations than similar districts in the same capacity quintiles generally do better
Tell county story

21. SIMULATION RESULTS
Districts whose enrollments are significantly below their current ADM tend to get smaller or no increases relative to those without this condition
Districts that have seen sharp increases in Public Utility Property Values between 2016 and 2018 tend to get smaller or no increases
THERE CAN BE DISTRICTS MEETING ANY OF THESE 5 CRITERIA THAT DO NOT TREND LIKE MOST OTHERS MEETING THE CRITERIA
Tell county story

22. FY 19 STATE AID FOR STUDENTS BEING EDUCATED IN THE DISTRICT
Third through eleventh districts with the least capacity measured by Targeted Assistance Wealth
Tell county story

23. SIMULATION RESULTS BY CAPACITY QUINTILE FOR THE FAIR FUNDING PLAN
FY 2021 Average Per Pupil Aid
Lowest Capacity
$8,821
Quintile 2
$6,784
Quintile 3
$5,835
Quintile 4
$4,646
Highest Capacity
$2,593
Tell county story

24. SIMULATION RESULTS BY CAPACITY QUINTILE
Guarantee Districts under Fair Funding Plan
Non-Guarantee Districts under Fair Funding Plan
Lowest Capacity
$10,366
$7,753
Quintile 2
$6,795
$6,092
Quintile 3
$6,163
$5,196
Quintile 4
$4,576
$4,012
Highest Capacity
$3,042
$1,978
Districts on the guarantee under the proposed formula have significantly more current funding than other districts with similar capacity
Per Pupil state funding after all deductions--FY2019 allocations for guarantee and non-guarantee districts under the Fair Funding Formula
Tell county story

25. SIMULATION RESULTS BY CAPACITY QUINTILE
Estimated Average Increase
Lowest Capacity
$648
Quintile 2
$692
Quintile 3
$624
Quintile 4
$663
Highest Capacity
$460
Average per pupil gain per quintile for districts receiving additional revenue under the Fair Funding Plan
Tell county story

26. Distribution in Conclusion
This proposal provides for the needed rational, transparent, comprehensive and understandable distribution method that will provide for stability and scalability among the State’s 610 Districts.
Mike S