Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/116561
Legislative Update: SB 1444, cont. from page 6 Both have a maximum per-pupil payout of $500 once fully implemented. 1.Achievement: Receive funding by scoring enough points to receive an A, B or C. Will be tied to the specific score, not the letter grade, to provide consistency in year-to-year funding as school districts/ charter schools move up or down on the accountability scale. 2.Improvement: Awarded by improving score above their current five-year high. There will be higher per-pupil improvement payments for school districts and charter schools that receive a D or F (so that those schools get increased funding if they improve their overall score but do not yet end up in the A, B or C category). •The funding for this program will be part of the school finance formula and paid for with new dollars appropriated to the state's general fund ($36.2 million) and also with dollars reallocated from the existing formula ($18.1 million). 1.Funding will be phased in over a five-year period until it makes up about 5% of the total K-12 formula funding in fiscal year 2017-2018. 2.Funding will be reallocated from the existing formula by reducing the base level funding. 3.Monies earned through this performance funding will be flexible for use at the local level. SB 1444 Analysis and Key Issues By David R. Garcia, Associate Professor, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College Distribution of Net Performance Funding Per Pupil by LEA Poverty Level, All LEAs* LEA Poverty Level LEAs Students Average Net Performance Funding PP** <25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% 9 57 119 159 37,084 322,041 325,214 255,387 $ 42.72 $ 41.20 $ 21.86 $ 18.65 *Includes LEAs that report data on Free and Reduced Lunch counts and some small LEAs that may be excluded in the final implementation. Summer.13advo.indd 25 AT THE CAPITOL ** Net Performance Funding Per Pupil = New Funds – Reallocated Funds, calculated 2013-2014 allocation amounts per the SB 1444 distribution formula as passed by the Senate Education Committee. Achievement Funds •Inequitable. More advantaged districts receive more Achievement Funds. Among largest LEAs, there is a very strong negative relationship between Achievement Funds and Free/ Reduced Lunch and a moderate, negative relationship among the smallest LEAs. •Accounts for 67% of estimated 2013-2014 Total Performance Funds. •Likely to be stable and to account for the majority of funding over time. Improvement Funds •Key assumption is that Improvement Funds will make up for inequities in Achievement Funds but improvement points restricted per the formula. •The A-F accountability calculations are a moving target. Year-to-year fluctuations will be unrelated to school district performance (e.g. AZELLA (3 points), graduation rate changes (? points), PARCC (?)). •From SY2011 to SY2012, the statewide average improvement gains were minimal. Average Improvement Point Gains by LEA Size LEAs Large Small Total % Student Population 75 25 100 57 310 367 Average Gains 0.65 2.69 2.37 Long-term issues •Some argue that Performance Funding is the only way to get new funds this session. Should consider the long-term impact when in year 5, one-point changes to the formula will result in major funding swings. •Setting the stage for more performance funding. Accountability scores increase over time, regardless of Performance Funding. Future improvements (or declines) should not be attributed to Performance Funding. 2 AEA Advocate x Summer 2013 25 3/18/13 12:03 PM