Local Control Funding Formula. Presented by Damon R. Smith, Associate Superintendent Alameda County Office of Education

Transcription

1 Lcal Cntrl Funding Frmula Presented by Damn R. Smith, Assciate Superintendent Alameda Cunty Office f Educatin

2 With Special Guest: Kevin Grdn President and Partner

3 Imprtant Slides While we hpe all f this presentatin is infrmative and imprtant We ve highlighted the upper right crner f key slides with..

4 Backgrund Strngly influenced by the paper written by Alan Bersin, Michael Kirst, and Gdwin Liu Enacted int law effective fiscal year AB 97 (budget bill), SB 91 (clean-up), AB 86 (budget trailer) SB 97 (latest clean-up) et al Prvides a new funding frmula replacing the ld revenue limit Eliminates many categrical funding surces Prvides significant shift t largely unrestricted funding Establishes new accuntability measures

5 The Frmula - What s Out The ld revenue limit Deficit factrs PERS Reductin Unemplyment reimbursements Mst Categrical Prgrams Arts and Music Blck Grant Ecnmic Impact Aid Deferred Maintenance Instructinal Materials Cmmunity Day Schls Teacher Peer Review CaHSEE Intensive Instructin and Services Schl Safety Blck Grant K-3 CSR And many mre!

6 The Frmula - What Cntinues Special Educatin Fster Yuth Services Hme t Schl Transprtatin Targeted Instructinal Imprvement Blck Grant (TIIBG) ROP (fr tw years) Adult Educatin (in a new frmat) After Schl Educatin and Safety (ASES) Child Develpment Child Nutritin *list is nt exhaustive

7 The Frmula What s New Lcal Cntrl Funding Frmula Weighted funding levels depending n the student s grade span Augmentatins (Supplemental Grants) Fr English Language Learners (ELL) And children in lw incme families as measured by Free and Reduced Meal (FRM) eligibility (Als Fster Yuth) Cncentratin Grants Fr high densities f ELL / FRM student ppulatins Lcal Cntrl Accuntability Plans

8 The Frmula Grade Span Funding Grade Span K Funding Level $6,952 $7,056 $7,266 $8,419 Add-Ons: K-3 Class Size and 9-12 Cllege and Career Readiness* Grade Span K Funding Level $ $219 The K-3 add-n is 10.4% f the base grant and as a cnditin f receiving the funds a district must make prgress twards maintaining an average K-3 class size f nt mre than 24 t 1 The 9-12 add-n is 2.6% f the base grant. It was riginally targeted fr Cllege and Career Readiness but nw has n limitatins attached t the funds.

9 The Frmula Supplemental Grants 20% add-n t the base grant fr each unduplicated pupil cunt: Eligible fr free r reduced-price meals (FRM) Pupil f limited English prficiency (ELL) Fster Yuth (FY) The cunts are measured during the annual pupil census in Octber and are measured as a percentage f ttal pupil enrllment. e.g. 64% FRM/ELL

10 The Frmula Cncentratin Grants Fr schl districts with a high density FRM/ELL cunt, a Cncentratin grant is awarded, calculated as fllws: 50% f the base grant fr the percentage f unduplicated FRM/ELL in excess f 55% f the ttal enrllment. Example: A district s FRM/ELL % is 64% Then 9% f the enrllment is abve the 55% threshld (64%-55%) and eligible fr additinal funding.

11 LCFF Target An Example Grade Span K-3 Base Amunt $6,952 Add-On $753 Ttal Base $7,675 Cncentratin 50% Subttal $3,838 FRM /ELL % 21% (76-55) Cnc. Amunt $806 Supplemental 20% Subttal $1,535 FRM/ELL % 76% Supp. Amunt $1,167 Base $7,675 Supplemental $1,167 Cncentratin $806 LCFF Per K-3 Pupil Ttal $9,648

12 Frmula Yur LCFF Target Multiply yur Average Daily Attendance (ADA) times yur $ funding per pupil target in each grade span. This is yur new LCFF funding target. Simple! But wait. There is nt enugh funding in the State budget t fully fund LCFF fr each district. Mre n that t cme!

13 A Hld Harmless Because any mdel shift inherently has winners and lsers as cmpared t the previus mdel this mdel has a Hld Harmless clause t minimize the impact and prevent districts frm lsing funding (as cmpared t ). N district can receive less funding in any future year than it did in Except that the revenue limit is grwth (decline) adjusted

14 An Expensive Mdel The Legislative Analyst s Office indicates that t fully implement the LCFF in wuld require an additinal $18 billin abve spending levels. The Legislature was able t apprpriate abut 12% f the necessary funding. Accrdingly each district will receive abut 12% f the difference between their LCFF target and their Hld Harmless level. This % has becme knwn in the field as gap funding

15 8 years? Based upn current Department Of Finance (DOF) prjectins fr grwth in Prpsitin 98, it will take 8 years t fully fund and implement the LCFF mdel. Is that realistic?

16 Ecnmic Recvery Target Fr abut 20% f all districts, their LCFF target des nt exceed the amunt f funding the district wuld have received if the deficit factr and categrical prgram funding reductins had been restred. In these cases, the district is eligible fr an additinal revenue add-n, referred t as an Ecnmic Recvery Target (ERT). The ERT is equal t the difference between LCFF and the ld revenue limit mdel, funded evenly ver 8 years.

17 A lk at Alameda Schl Districts District EL/FRM % Base Funding Hld Harmless LCFF Target LCFF Gap Funding Ecnmic Recvery Target Funds Alameda USD 43% $ 57,472,053 $ 76,586,276 $ 2,251,655 $ - Albany USD 36% $ 22,287,620 $ 30,674,421 $ 987,965 $ - Berkeley USD 42% $ 65,893,046 $ 80,852,894 $ 1,762,270 $ 103,174 Castr Valley USD 25% $ 56,413,576 $ 72,954,637 $ 1,948,537 $ - Dublin USD 15% $ 52,119,945 $ 62,141,059 $ 1,180,487 $ 629,682 Emery USD 74% $ 5,223,964 $ 6,735,016 $ 178,002 $ - Fremnt USD 32% $ 204,614,198 $ 269,319,294 $ 7,622,260 $ - EL/FRM % is frm Department f Finance estimates based n CALPADS data.

18 A lk at Alameda Schl Districts District EL/FRM % Base Funding Hld Harmless LCFF Target LCFF Gap Funding Ecnmic Recvery Target Funds Hayward USD 76% $ 136,111,934 $ 192,918,781 $ 6,691,847 $ - Livermre VJUSD 28% $ 76,142,148 $ 101,586,907 $ 2,997,393 $ - Muntain Huse 48% $ 468,762 $ 693,493 $ 26,473 $ - New Haven USD 56% $ 77,492,252 $ 107,439,759 $ 3,527,816 $ - Newark USD 60% $ 41,609,677 $ 56,423,304 $ 1,745,045 $ - Oakland USD 80% $ 246,813,054 $ 358,887,653 $ 13,202,388 $ - Piedmnt USD 2% $ 15,462,227 $ 19,736,075 $ 503,459 $ - EL/FRM % is frm Department f Finance estimates based n CALPADS data.

19 A lk at Alameda Schl Districts District EL/FRM % Base Funding Hld Harmless LCFF Target LCFF Gap Funding Ecnmic Recvery Target Funds Pleasantn USD 9% $ 95,148,824 $ 115,487,816 $ 2,395,933 $ 782,549 San Leandr USD 70% $ 53,189,463 $ 79,085,383 $ 3,050,539 $ - San Lrenz USD 68% $ 70,261,018 $ 101,851,907 $ 3,721,407 $ - Sunl Glen USD 12% $ 1,946,947 $ 2,040,707 $ 11,045 $ 52,973 EL/FRM % is frm Department f Finance estimates based n CALPADS data.

20 A lk at Alameda Schl Districts District EL/FRM % ADA Funding Increase abve HH % Change Alameda USD 43% 8,924 $ 59,723,708 $ 2,251, % Albany USD 36% 3,679 $ 23,275,585 $ 987, % Berkeley USD 42% 8,907 $ 67,758,490 $ 1,865, % Castr Valley USD 25% 8,586 $ 58,362,113 $ 1,948, % Dublin USD 15% 7,826 $ 53,930,114 $ 1,810, % Emery USD 74% 702 $ 5,401,966 $ 178, % Fremnt USD 32% 32,249 $ 212,236,458 $ 7,622, %

21 A lk at Alameda Schl Districts District EL/FRM % ADA Funding Increase abve HH % Change Hayward USD 76% 19,784 $ 142,803,780 $ 6,691, % Livermre VJUSD 28% 12,208 $ 79,139,540 $ 2,997, % Muntain Huse 48% 31 $ 495,235 $ 26, % New Haven USD 56% 12,309 $ 81,020,069 $ 3,527, % Newark USD 60% 6,242 $ 43,354,723 $ 1,745, % Oakland USD 80% 34,711 $ 260,015,442 $ 13,202, % Piedmnt USD 2% 3,530 $ 15,965,687 $ 503, %

22 A lk at Alameda Schl Districts District EL/FRM % ADA Funding Increase abve HH % Change Pleasantn USD 9% 14,013 $ 98,327,307 $ 3,178, % San Leandr USD 70% 8,348 $ 56,240,003 $ 3,050, % San Lrenz USD 68% 10,798 $ 73,982,425 $ 3,721, % Sunl Glen USD 12% 262 $ 2,010,965 $ 64, %

23 Lcal Cntrl Accuntability Plans L C A P

24 Intrducing Ingrid Rbersn Assessment and Accuntability Expert Alameda Cunty Office f Educatin

25 L C A P State Bard Rle

26 L C A P State Bard Template Befre March 31, 2014 Adpt templates fr schl districts, COEs, and charter schls. Befre Octber 1, 2015 Adpt a rubric fr the fllwing purpses: T assist in evaluating a district s strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require imprvement. T assist a COE in identifying schl districts in need f technical assistance. T assist the SPI in identifying schl districts in need f interventin. Befre January 31 (every year) Revisins t any rubric f evaluatin fr use in the fllwing fiscal year.

27 L C A P State Pririties The degree t which: Teachers are prperly assigned and credentialed in the subject areas Students have access t standards-aligned instructinal materials Schl facilities are in gd repair. Implementatin f the academic cntent and perfrmance standards Parental invlvement

28 L C A P State Pririties Pupil achievement as measured by: Statewide assessments API % f pupils wh satisfy the UC and CSU requirements fr entrance OR certain CTE standards % f English learner pupils wh make prgress tward English prficiency English learner reclassificatin rate % f pupils wh pass an advanced placement exam % f pupils wh demnstrate cllege preparedness pursuant t the Early Assessment Prgram.

29 L C A P State Pririties Pupil engagement as measured by: Schl attendance rates Chrnic absenteeism rates Middle schl drput rates High schl drput rates High schl graduatin rates

30 L C A P State Pririties Schl climate as measured by: Pupil suspensin rates Pupil expulsin rates Other lcal measures including surveys f pupils, parents, and teachers n the sense f safety and schl cnnectedness. The extent t which students have access t and are enrlled in the curses f study utlined in EC and Pupil utcmes in the subject areas utlined in EC and 51220

31 L C A P Spending Regulatins Befre January 31, 2014: SBE t adpt regulatins that gvern the expenditure f funds apprtined n the basis f the number and cncentratin f unduplicated pupils.. Require a district t increase r imprve services in prprtin t the increase in funds apprtined n the basis f unduplicated pupils. N mre restrictive than Title I

32 L C A P District Bard Rle

33 L C A P District Plans Befre July 1, 2014 Adpt a plan using the template adpted by SBE Effective fr 3 years Updated annually n r befre July 1

34 L C A P : District Plans What it includes 1) Annual gals fr all pupils and subgrups Ethnic subgrups Sciecnmically disadvantaged pupils English learners Pupils with disabilities Fster yuth fr each f the State pririties and any lcal pririties established by the gverning bard. 2) The specific actin the district will take during each year f the plan

35 L C A P District Plans Befre July 1, 2015 and each year thereafter Review changes in gals. Review f prgress tward the gals in the existing plan. Prvide a listing and descriptin f the expenditures fr the fiscal year implementing specific actins included in the plan as a result f the abve reviews. Prvide a listing and descriptin f the expenditures fr the fiscal year that will serve ELL / FRM / Fster yuth pupils and pupils redesignated as fluent English prficient.

36 L C A P District Plans Befre the gverning bard cnsiders adptin f the plan (r an annual update t the plan): The plan shall be presented t the parent advisry cmmittee(s) Ntify members f the public f the pprtunity t submit written cmments. Ensure cnsistency between the LCAP and schl site plans under the cnslidated applicatin prcess (Single Plan fr Pupil Achievement) Hld a public hearing at the same meeting the public hearing is held fr budget adptin

37 Parent Advisry Cmmittee The gverning bard shall establish a parent advisry cmmittee t prvide advice t the gverning bard...and superintendent regarding the requirements f this article. Shall include parents f pupils wh are ELL/FRM/FY A new cmmittee is nt required if the district already has a parent advisry cmmittee that meets the requirements

38 English learner Parent Advisry Cmm. The gverning bard shall establish an English learner parent advisry cmmittee if the district enrllment includes 15% English learners (and at least 50 pupils wh are English learners). Again, a new cmmittee is nt required if the district already has a parent advisry cmmittee that meets the requirements.

39 L C A P : District Plans Other Ntes T the extent pssible, data is t be reprted in a manner cnsistent with hw infrmatin is reprted n the SARC. A gverning bard shall cnsult with teachers, principals, administratrs, ther schl persnnel, lcal bargaining units f the schl district, parents, and pupils in develping the plan. The plan must be psted n the district website. The plan is nt subject t SBE waivers.

40 L C A P Evaluatin Rubric On r befre Octber 1, 2015 the SBE t adpt an evaluatin rubric T assist in evaluating a district s strengths, weaknesses, and areas that require imprvement. T assist a COE in identifying schl districts in need f technical assistance. T assist the SPI in identifying schl districts in need f interventin. It shuld reflect a hlistic, multidimensinal assessment f the district and schl site perfrmance as they relate t the state pririties.

41 L C A P Budget Adptin and the Rle f the COE (and State)

42 L C A P Apprval Prcess Districts must file their LCAP with the COE nt later than 5 days after adptin. Up t August 15th a COE may seek clarificatin in writing District t respnd, in writing, within 15 days f receiving COE request Within 15 days f District respnse, the Cunty Superintendent may submit recmmendatins fr amendment t the District. Within 15 days f receiving the Cunty Superintendent s recmmendatins, the Gverning Bard shall cnsider them in a public meeting. The Cunty Superintendent shall apprve the plan n r befre Octber 8th if.

43 L C A P Apprval Prcess 1) The LCAP r annual update adheres t the template adpted by SBE. 2) The budget adpted by the lcal gverning bard includes expenditures sufficient t implement the specific actins and strategies included in the lcal cntrl and accuntability plan adpted by the gverning bard f the schl district, based upn the prjectins f the csts included in the plan. 3) The LCAP adheres t the expenditure requirements fr funds apprtined n the basis f unduplicated pupil cunt.

44 L C A P And Budget Apprval The Cunty Superintendent shall Determine whether the adpted budget includes the expenditures necessary t implement the LCAP r annual update t the LCAP apprved by the cunty superintendent f schls. If the Cunty Superintendent s review determines that the adpted budget des nt satisfy this requirement, she may Cnditinally apprve the budget Disapprve the budget Nte the parallel structure t LCAP apprval On r befre August 15th Shall disapprve a budget if the Cunty Superintendent determines that the budget des nt include the expenditures necessary t implement the LCAP. Clarity t cme.

45 Califrnia Cllabrative fr Educatinal Excellence (CCEE) A Fiscal Crisis And Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) like entity (hwever it is nt run by FCMAT) T advise and assist districts in achieving the gals set frth in their LCAP Districts may request interventin

46 Disapprved L C A P If a COE des nt apprve an LCAP The COE shall prvide technical assistance including: A) Identificatin f the schl district s strengths and weaknesses in regards t the state pririties. B) Assignment f an academic expert(s) The COE may slicit anther schl district within the cunty t act as a partner. C) Request the SPI t assign the CCEE t prvide advice and assistance.

47 Failed Evaluatin Rubric The COE shall prvide technical assistance if a district fails t imprve pupil achievement acrss mre than ne state pririty fr ne r mre pupil subgrups.

48 State Interventin The SPI, with SBE apprval, may identify districts in need f interventin nly if a district meets bth criteria: 1) N imprvement fr 3 r mre pupil subgrups in regard t mre than 1 state r lcal pririty in 3 ut f 4 cnsecutive years. 2) CCEE has prvided advice and assistance and submits either f these findings t the SPI: A) The district has failed t implement CCEE recmmendatins B) Inadequate perfrmance, based upn the rubric, is either s persistent r acute as t require interventin by the SPI

49 State Interventin SPI, with SBE apprval, may: Make changes t the LCAP. Develp and impse a budget revisin, in cnjunctin with the LCAP, that SPI determines wuld allw fr imprvement in the utcmes f all pupil subgrups in regards t state r lcal pririties. Stay r rescind any actin that wuld prevent the district frm imprving utcmes fr all pupil subgrups in regards t state r lcal pririties (unless required by a lcal bargaining unit agreement). Appint an Academic Trustee t exercise the pwers and authrity f the SPI.

50 Other Impacts

51 Maintenance f Effrt ROPs Tw years Shall nt redirect that funding fr any ther purpse. Shall expend n less than the amunt expended fr ROP in Hme-t-schl Transprtatin Shall expend n less than the amunt f funds expended fr hmet-schl transprtatin in fiscal year. Adult Educatin Shall expend n less than the amunt expended fr Adult Educatin in

52 Questins Bards shuld ask

53 LCAP Given LCFF and Cmmn Cre State Standards, what is the district s visin fr teaching and learning fr the next three years? With that visin in mind, what are the key district strategies fr achieving that visin? Hw is funding aligned t supprt thse key district strategies t mve teaching and learning frward?

54 LCFF / Fiscal Hw des LCFF affect my district s cashflw? Hw can we rethink ur budget allcatins nw that s many categrical prgram requirements are gne? Are we capturing all the data we need?

55 Negtiatins Hw des this impact my Negtiatins? Funding uncertainty! Depends n Prp. 98 grwth N such animal as COLA Hard t cmpare t ther districts nw D I have t negtiate the LCAP? D I have t negtiate the effects f the LCAP?

56

57