- Количество слайдов: 39
School Apportionment Hot Topics WASBO - 2011
Legislative Topics K-4 Elimination LEA – Untouched!? !? Average Daily Attendance Full Day Kindergarten Salaries › Freeze vs. › 3% cuts High Poverty Class Size Hold Harmless June 30 th. National Board Bonus Safety Net Funds
K-4 Class Size Both budgets eliminate this funding Savings $162. 7 M for staffing and $23. 9 M from reduced MSOC.
Proposed Changes for Prototype K-3 smaller class size for high poverty schools. Minor revisions made for CTE and Skills Center to add units for classified and administrative staffing. MSOC inflated by IPD to a higher value than in the budget.
Proposed Changes for Prototype As expected, a change to the Admin factor and breakdown between CAS & CLS. Hold Harmless for transition changes is being proposed.
LEA & LEVY No proposed cuts by either House or Senate. (so far) Two bills changing levy calculation proposed: › HB 1815 › HB 1814 Levy & LEA Workgroup › Report Due June 30 th.
HB 1815 SB 5652 Levy Base Revision This bill would create another “ghost” amount in the calculation of the LEVY base to include per pupil reductions in funding since the 2009 -10 school year. This would apply towards the 2011 through 2017 levy calculations. The base year for health benefits is 2010 -11. Bill reintroduced April 26 th
HB 1814 SB 5651 Edu. Jobs in Levy Base This bill would add the Edu-Jobs funding into the levy base for the 2011 and 2012 Levy calculations for district that approved levy prior to April 30 th, 2011. Effectively double counts Edu-Jobs $$ in the 2011 levy base. Reintroduced April 26 th.
Average Daily Attendance Initially proposed in Senate Budget Proposal dropped. Would have required reductions in the Student FTE based upon a district’s unexcused absence rate before calculation of state funding. Would have recognized $92. 4 M in savings. Depreciation dollars shifted to make up savings.
FDK – House Proposal House funding level increased to 21%. Eligibility is based upon a three year measure of school poverty. Law states once eligible always eligible. These changes do not represent much of a change in current programs. Due to growth the original crop of schools under 20% now serve 20. 78%. Change affects future school site entrants into FDK.
House Salary Proposal No funded salary increases will be provided for experience or education after the 2010 -11 S-275 reporting. › Salary compliance was not repealed. › OSPI dilemma - How to implement? ? To report or not to report?
Senate Salary Proposal Reduce funded salary 3% › Easy for OSPI to implement. › Will districts have to reduce CIS base in contracts? › Salary compliance was not repealed. Provides $5 M annually to ensure that employees being paid less than $30, 000 on a 1. 0 FTE basis were not cut. ($15 hour) Savings $212. 9 M
High Poverty Class-Size for K-3 Both the House and Senate propose an enhancement to K-3 class-size for high poverty schools. Both define as greater than 50% based upon a three year measure. › House reduces to 24. 23 and labels this “basic ed. ” $25 M › Senate reduces to 22. 75 but does not consider this basic ed. $64. 3 M
Hold Harmless The new LAP formula does not continue the high concentration / bilingual enhancement. Resulting reduction is $24. 5 Million. FFTWG and QEC both recommended a hold harmless for this transition.
Hold Harmless – “In Total” Both the House and Senate propose an aggregated hold harmless (HH) calculation. This calculation combines the conversion changes in Basic Ed, Bilingual, Highly Capable, and LAP, and provides a HH as the net change. HH funding is not considered LAP. Would be paid under account 3100.
Hold Harmless As proposed: The calculation for HH does not incorporate any changes for benefit rates. The House includes the K-3 reduction in the calculation and the change in MSOC. Provides $19. 2 M The Senate does not. And provides $41. 5 M
June 30 th Proposed Payment Delay A portion of the June 30 th apportionment payment will be paid on July 1 st(Friday). Will not affect State and Federal grant Payments. Limited loan funds available. District must apply to be considered by May 25 th. Bill 1354 would allow up to $253 M to be delayed at Governor’s discretion.
June 30 th Loan Request District must complete packet. District must be current on all grant claims. Districts must have borrowed all available funds from CPF, TVF funds. Must submit a County Treasurer statement that the County is unable to help district with loan, interest bearing warrants or other mechanisms.
Bi-Monthly Payments Discussion circulating on setting up bimonthly apportionment payments. Bill expected to be introduced revising RCW 28 A. 510. The bill would require half (? ? ) of state apportionment would be paid on the 25 th with the other half being paid on the 10 th. It is anticipated that OSPI would continue to make the payments of all federal and state grants on the 25 th.
Bi-Monthly Payments Expected to be tagged onto 1354. As discussed this would not be enacted until the 2012 -13 school year. If enacted this would be forevermore.
National Board Bonus Both Budgets: Rates change for first year teachers to 60% of annual bonus. Challenging schools? ? Available only for three years following initial NBCT certification. To be paid annually only in July.
Safety Net Funds Both Budgets: Shall only be paid in August at year end. Current discussion focus on a single SNET meeting to consider applications in June. District notification would target June 30 th.
Various Other Areas • Prototype - Planning Time • ALE • Running Start • SAFS Rules Changes • Systems
Prototype - Planning Time Factor Lots of confusion around the planning time factor in the budget. The budgeted elementary factor of 13. 42 % for planning time creates a increase factor for teachers of 1. 155 The budgeted middle and secondary planning time of 16. 67% creates an increase factor for teachers of 1. 20.
Planning Time Walk Through. Elementary (1) Prototypical Enrollment (2) Class Size (Assume K-3 for elementary) (3) # Teachers Required with no Planning (1) / (2) Middle High 400. 00 432. 00 600. 00 25. 23 28. 53 28. 74 15. 85 15. 14 20. 88 (4) Assumed Instructional Day 5. 60 6. 00 (5 a) Planning Time (assumed) 0. 75 1. 00 (5 b) Budget Bill Assumption (5 a) / (4) (6) Assumed instructional time per teacher (4)*(1 - (14) ) (7) 13. 42% 16. 67% 4. 85 5. 00 # class hours (3) * (4) 88. 78 90. 85 125. 26 (8) Number of Teachers Required With Planning Time Inc (7) / (6) 18. 31 18. 17 25. 05 (9) Staffing factor to be used for planning (8) / (3) 1. 155 1. 20
Alternative Learning Experience Programs • Reduced Funding • Revised Rules • Audit Issues
ALE Legislative Changes Both budgets propose cuts to ALE › House proposes funding at 80. 1% › Senate proposes funding at 90% Both budgets adopt a version of OSPI’s proposed rule change to prohibit direct payments to students & parents. Senate saves $25. 8 M
ALE Legislative Changes If enacted, how will the funding reduction appear on apportionment reports? Where will student FTE come from?
ALE – Definition Review ALE is not necessarily an alternative high school. An alternative high school may have both seat-time and independent components. ALE is independent learning time claimed for funding - subject to the rules under WAC 392 -121 -182.
ALE Rules - WAC 392 -121 -182 These changes were performed independent of any legislative action. Rule hearing was held April 26, 2011. This rule change updates district requirements and responsibilities, defines the key terms related to ALE, and addresses a number of issues that were highlighted by the work group.
ALE Rules - WAC 392 -121 -182 High-lited changes: › Prohibition of any payment, stipend or reimbursement to students or parents. › Districts must include students enrolled GT 0. 80 FTE in assessment. › Stronger standards for direct personal contact between student and Teacher. › Approval of learning materials consistent with 28 A. 320. 230. › Clearer language regarding required documentation.
ALE Audits SAO has audited several large on-line/ALE programs. Audit reports are stating several recoveries above $1 million. Typical errors are: › Failure to develop appropriate learning plan. › Failure to develop and document reasonable contact between teacher and student. › Lack of documentation for teacher performing monthly review of student progress. › These errors reflect a casual attitude about district/teacher responsibility for these programs.
Running Start Legislative and Contemporary Issues
Running Start Super FTE Historically has been 2. 0 FTE with a limitation of 1. 0 at HS and 1. 0 in College Both budget bills reduce this overall to 1. 2 FTE. Savings projected at $5. 8 M
Issue: Contracting for Running Start in the High School Many comments received about contracting for Running Start in the high school. One agreement shared with OSPI, requires school district staff to provide program staffing while the college gets 93% of funding. The original 93% funding assumed program was provided on the college campus by college faculty. Districts may negotiate with the college for reimbursement for district staff and facility usage. Districts may refuse to provide program.
Rule Changes Key changes in 2010/11 392 -140 – Principals may no longer receive NBCT bonus. 392 -137 -115 – Defines student residence. 392 -126 -075 – Shared leave between school districts. 392 -122 Education programs in Jails
S-275 System Changes School Number – to be edited against. New numbering being created for nonstudent locations for staff reporting. Separate reporting for TRI contracts for innovative activities. Duty code changes to better align to the Prototype staffing. Freezing Staff Mix? ?
SAFS News Systems – F-203 will be programmed and released after the legislature passes a budget. Unfortunately, school district budget timelines may prompt action before this.
F-203 X System Usage F-203 X has been available since January. As of April 26 th. 192 Districts have created 404 F-203 X estimates. Highest number of estimates for one district = 14. Most optimistic named estimate - “Final Budget” 103 have not created any estimate. This is concerning.