Transcript Local Control Funding Formula

Local Control Funding Formula
NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
October 15, 2013
School Finance Timeline
1971 Serrano v. Priest Decision
1972 Legislature Enacts SB 90
1978 Voters Enact Proposition 13
1979 Voters Enact Proposition 4 Gann Limit
1988 Voters Enact Proposition 98
1993 Legislature Enacts SB 813
2004 Williams Lawsuit Settled
2013 Legislature Enacts AB 97,
The Governor’s LCFF Reform
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
Great Recession
Major Restructuring of
School Finance Formula - LCFF
Equity
Local
Decision
Alignment
•Students of poverty
•English Language Learners
•Students in foster care
•Elimination of most
categorical programs
•Elimination of Revenue
Limits
•Local Control
Accountability Plans (LCAP)
•With budget & student
outcomes
LCFF = Formula
Base Grant
• All districts receive
• Grade level tiers
• 2020-2021 target base funding
Supplemental Funding
• 20% of base grant
• Students of poverty, English Language Learners, and
students in foster care
• Unduplicated
LCFF = Formula
Concentration Funding
• 55% of district population
• Students of poverty, English Language Learners, and
students in foster care
• THEN 50% of base grant based on unduplicated counts of
students ABOVE 55% of district enrollment
• NUSD does not qualify for concentration funding
School Funding Before & After LCFF
Before LCFF
After LCFF
 Revenue Limits
 LCFF base funding
 State categorical
programs with temporary
tiered flexibility
 K-3 class size reduction
limited funding with
unlimited class sizes
 Accountability and
performance process
separate from funding
differentiated by grade
level
 Unduplicated pupil
weights, including
concentration funding
 K-3 class size reduction,
target 24:1
 Local Control
Accountability Plans
(LCAP) required
School Funding Before & After LCFF
Unchanged
Financial Audits
Compliance with Williams Act
School Accountability Report Cards
Federal funding, planning, and
accountability requirements
Funding based on ADA
NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
English Language Learners
1600
1400
1230
1224
2008
2009
1280
1300
2010
2011
1339
1338
2012
2013
1200
1058
1000
931
800
600
400
200
0
2006
2007
NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students
Students of Poverty
3500
2878
3000
2664
2500
2274
1978
2000
2070
1887
1729
1685
1500
1305
2180
1413
2239
2453
2582
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
1869
1494
Students of
Poverty*
1000
500
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
*Based on Free
and Reduced
Meal counts
NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2020-2021 Target Base Funding
$10,000
$8,638
$9,000
$8,000
$7,675
$7,266
$7,056
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
K-3 with CSR
4th-6th
Base Grant
7th-8th
9th-12th with CTE
NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
2020-2021 Target Supplemental Funding
$9,260
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$8,227
$552
$7,564
$508
$7,000
$7,789
$622
$523
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$8,638
$7,675
$7,056
$7,266
4th-6th
7th-8th
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
K-3 with CSR
Base Grant
Supplemental Grant
9th-12th with CTE
NUSD – Then and Now Going Forward
2012-2013
Revenue Limit
per ADA
TOTAL
$7,583
$50,990,725
Deficit Factor
.77728
.77728
Funded
Revenue Limit
per ADA
$5,227
$39,634,070
State
Categorical
Funding
Total Revenue
Limit and State
Funding
13
programs
$7,838,585
2013-2014
Base Grant
2020-2021 Target
$56,689,622
Grade Span
K-3 and 9th
2020-2021 Target
$2,261,251
Supplemental Funding
2020-2021 Target
$3,516,020
Concentration Funding
N/A for NUSD
$0
Transportation & TIIG
Target to be funded
over 8 years
$47,472,655
TOTAL
LCFF Funding in
2013-2014
$1,096,385
($14,252,413)
$49,310,865
LCFF Rules on Specific Programs
• Home-to-School Transportation and Targeted Instructional
Improvement Grants as add–ons:
 Districts will continue to receive 2012-2013 levels
 Transportation funds used for transportation
• Adult Education and Regional Occupational Centers and
Programs (ROCPs):
 Maintenance of effort requirements for two years
• Joint Powers Authorities for Transportation or ROCPs:
 Districts must continue for two years
13 Categorical Programs Remain
• Special Education
• Partnership Academies
• QEIA (Quality Education Investment Act) • Indian Education Centers
• Assessment
• Specialized Secondary Programs
• Foster Youth
• Ag Vocational Education
• After School Programs • Adults in Correctional Facilities
• State Preschool
• Early Childhood Education
• Child Nutrition
What is Required in Statute *
 To increase or improve services for students of poverty,
English language learners, and students in foster care in
proportion to the increase in funds apportioned on the basis
of the number of unduplicated count of the students
 The LEA may use these funds for school-wide, or LEA-wide,
purposes in a manner that is not more restrictive than the
restrictions provided for in Title I of “No Child Left Behind”
* State Board of Education regulations by January 31, 2014
“COLA” vs. Growth Toward Target
 Under revenue limits, state law provided for an inflationary adjustment
based on the change in the Implicit Price Deflator, as published by the
U.S. Department of Commerce
 The Legislature, however, could appropriate less than the amount
needed, creating a revenue limit deficit, which was tracked by the
deficit factor
 If funded, the revenue limit COLA was provided as a specific dollar
amount per ADA, which varied by type of district (elementary, high
school, unified)
 All revenue limit districts received the COLA
 Basic aid districts, however, received no state aid and therefore their
annual change in funding did not correspond to the funded COLA
© 2013 School Services of California, Inc.
The LCFF “COLA”
 Under the LCFF, base grants are adjusted annually by the same U.S.
Department of Commerce index previously used to adjust revenue limits
(E.C. 42238.02[d][2])
 Because all of the LCFF adjustments – K-3 CSR, CTE, supplemental/
concentration grants – are tied to the base grant, these funds are
increased annually by the COLA as well
 However, during the eight-year implementation phase of the LCFF, the
change in the statutory COLA will not necessarily correspond to the
change in funding received by each district
 Though not explicitly identified, LCFF funding includes both COLA and
funding to restore prior-year cuts
 A district’s annual change in funding will depend primarily upon (1) its
% of eligible students and (2) its funding level in the 2012-2013 base
year
© 2013 School Services of California, Inc.
2014-2015 Estimated Growth Toward Target
 The increase in funding received by a district in 2014-2015 will
depend upon its student demographics, its 2012-2013 base year
funding level, the 2013-2014 LCFF increase, and the state LCFF
appropriation in 2014-2015
The projected COLA for base grants is 1.8% for 2014-2015
 The Administration has indicated that it intends to provide about
$2.5 billion for LCFF in 2014-2015
This would equate to an average increase of 5.5%, well above
the projected COLA
“COLA” and growth of funding will be different for each district
© 2013 School Services of California, Inc.
2014-2015 Estimated Funding Increase
12%
11.4% High Eligibles (100%)
10%
9.5%
7.6%
8%
6.6% Average Eligibles (60%)
6%
5.5%
5.7%
4.4%
4%
3.8%
2.2%
2%
4.7%
3.3%
Low Eligibles (20%)
3.9%
3.1%
2.3%
1.6%
0%
$0
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
LCFF Appropriation ($ Billions)
© 2013 School Services of California, Inc.