1. School Finance Partnership Beyond the Base: Adjusting for Unique District and Student Needs Mary Wickersham, Colorado Children’s Campaign

2. Evolution of Colorado’s school funding Colorado’s first comprehensive school finance formula was written in 1952. The many different versions up until the current 1994 version focused primarily on two things: tax equity and establishing an equal amount per student of state aid.

3. Colorado’s per pupil funding today Base funding amount Adjustments (weights, factors) District characteristics—buying power Cost of Living Size Student characteristics—vertical equity At risk Categoricals

4. Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

7. Changes in Colorado student populations Source: Colorado School Finance Project

8. Budget cuts eliminated equity-based differentiation (weights) Source: Joint Budget Committee Staff

9. Equity in school finance formulas Horizontal equity ▫ Equal treatment of equals ▫ Fiscal neutrality Vertical equity ▫ Unequal treatment of unequals ▫ Additional resources for students with additional educational needs.

10. School Funding Formulas Foundation Programs (39) (38) Position Allocation Systems (6) (6) Other (5) (6) Source: Education Commission of the States

11. Approaches to weights District characteristics Student characteristics Programs/priorities

12. Regional cost adjustment Represents the differential costs of attracting and retaining quality personnel. Cost of living ▫ Market basket of goods and services Comparative wage index ▫ NCES developed a Comparative Wage Index for all districts nationally in 2006. Hedonic wage index ▫ Method that most fully considers non-financial factors that influence choice of location for education personnel.

13. Enrollment / location Meant to provide additional funds to address diseconomies of scale Taken into account by CO school finance formulas since 1952 Used in approximately 29 states Multiple measures: ▫ Enrollment ▫ Geographic size ▫ Population density ▫ Distance from next school ▫ Geographic barrier Certain methods may provide disincentives for consolidation.

14. Grade level Based on the idea that the cost of educating students is not the same at every grade level. State or district policies to limit class size for early grades can increase the costs of those years. Expanded curriculum offerings and facility needs can drive costs in secondary schools. Currently, 21 states include adjustments for grade level.

15. Other examples Adjustments made for teacher experience (8 states) ▫ Districts with higher levels of teacher experience receive additional funding. Adjustments made for district academic performance (4 states). ▫ Schools or districts with low student performance receive additional weights. In each case, the additional amount of funding is required to be used in the low-performing schools.

16. Special Education Many states including Colorado include special education funding as a categorical program, other states include a weight for special education. The formulas for special education vary greatly across states. ▫ Flat rate ▫ Tiered funding SFP subcommittee to examine Special Education funding options.

17. At risk Adjustment meant to capture the additional costs associated with programs and interventions to aid students who are at risk of failing or dropping out. Identifying at risk students ▫ Poverty: In addition to Colorado, 30 states provide a weight in their school finance formula for at-risk students measured by high poverty.  Free and reduced lunch  Percentage of children living in poverty  TANF eligible  Participation in federal food stamp program

18. At risk—cont. Mobility: correlated with both risk of academic failure and poverty Academically at risk: ▫ A few states do have included students who are academically behind in the at risk count: Georgia, Kansas, Virginia, Alabama, Ohio. ▫ Considered as a part of the development of the 1994 School Finance Act, but abandoned due to the lack of consistent, comparable data on student achievement statewide (before CSAPs).

19. Limited English proficiency Most states provide additional funding for students with limited English proficiency (also called English language learners (ELL)) ▫ 32 states, the most common among student characteristics Identifying at risk students ▫ Poverty: In addition to Colorado, 30 states provide a weight in their school finance formula for at-risk students measured by high poverty.  Free and reduced lunch  Percentage of children living in poverty  TANF eligible  Participation in federal food stamp program

20. Weights for programs Colorado has consistently tried to address with weights in the school finance act only those factors that are outside a district’s control. Examples ▫ Gifted and talented ▫ Career and technical education ▫ AP/IB enrollment or performance

21. How do you determine the size of the adjustment?

22. Spending flexibility The vast majority of marginal funding increases provided by weights in school funding formulas is not restricted in its use. One recent study looked at 218 adjustments in 48 states and found spending restriction applied to only 40.