School Finance

School finance overhaul introduced

Updated March 9 – The proposed school finance reform bill has been introduced in the Senate at the 2013 legislature’s halfway point, along with details of what it could mean for every Colorado school district.

Pile of cashTotal cost of the plan would be about $6.4 billion, roughly $1 billion more than the state and local districts currently spend on basic school operating costs.

Statewide average per-pupil funding would rise from $6,302 to $7,459, according to the Department of Education.

The measure, named Senate Bill 13-213, was introduced at about 11 p.m. Friday as the Senate ended a long day of debate on gun bills. Prime sponsor Sen. Mike Johnston told EdNews Friday that he expects Senate committee review during the week of March 18 and floor debate at the end of that week. The following week will be dominated by consideration of the proposed 2013-14 state budget, so the House may not turn its attention to school finance until April, if the Senate passes it. The legislature must adjourn by May 8.

Here’s a quick look at the potential changes in per-pupil funding for the state’s largest districts:

  • Adams 12-Five Star – Funding would go from $6,413 currently to $7,127
  • Aurora – $6,881 to $8,268
  • Boulder Valley – $6,498 to $6,885
  • Cherry Creek – $6,526 to $6,973
  • Colorado Springs District 11 – $6,465 to $7,258
  • Denver – $6,994 to $8,298
  • Douglas – $6,339 to $6,710
  • Jefferson County – $6,436 to $7,053
  • Poudre – $6,258 to $6,975
  • St. Vrain – $6,456 to $7,126

Check the full list of districts here.

Bill at a glance
  • $1 billion K-12 funding increase, if voters approve
  • Starts in 2015-16 school year
  • More money for preschool kids, kindergartners, at-risk students, English language learners, gifted and talented students
  • Across-the-board per-student bonus to help districts implement state reforms
  • New enrollment counting method
  • Incentives for low tax/high value districts to increase local taxes
  • Revenue improvements for charters
  • Regular review of the program and spending effectiveness

Johnston and his backers envision a two-part process in which the legislature would approve the complicated new formula but then voters would have to decide whether to raise taxes to pay for it. If voters didn’t approve the revenues the new system wouldn’t go into effect.

A key goal of Johnston’s plan is funneling more money to districts and schools with higher populations of at-risk students and English-language learners, which partly explains the larger increases for districts like Aurora and Denver and the smaller boosts for districts like Boulder Valley and Cherry Creek that have fewer students from poor families.

The per-pupil figures, both under the current system and the Johnston plan, don’t reflect full spending by districts. Many districts, including Cherry Creek and Denver, have received voter approval of local tax increases called mill levy overrides that add to district revenues but aren’t included in the state funding formula. And many districts, especially poor ones, receive federal Title I funds, intended to supplement spending in schools with high percentages of poor students. That money also isn’t reflected in state formulas current or proposed.

The estimates are illustrations in the sense that they show what per-pupil funding would be in 2013-14. The bill actually would go into effect in a later school year. The estimates also assume that district enrollment counts will drop an average of 2.1 percent because Johnston’s bill would move to the average daily membership method of counting students, replacing the current once-a-year attendance counts taken around Oct. 1.

The estimates reflect significant proposed increases in funding for at-risk preschool students and for full-day kindergarten and also include a flat $600 per student “bonus” to help districts cover the costs of implementing state education reforms.

Special circumstances for a few districts

Another element of Johnston’s plan would stabilize the ratio between local and state support of schools. Part of that mechanism would in effect “nudge” a few districts that levy low property taxes relative to property value to increase their taxes.

Those districts would receive the full higher funding for five years without having to raise local taxes. But after that they’d have to increase taxes to maintain the full per-pupil funding envisioned by the new plan.

Those districts are mostly in Eastern Plains or mountain areas of the state and include:

Campo, Arickaree, Bayfield, Branson, Briggsdale, Cheyenne, Durango, Gilpin, Hanover, Ignacio, Kim, Kit Carson, Norwood, Ouray, Parachute, Platte Canyon, Prairie, Primero, Rangely, Ridgway, Rifle, Steamboat Springs and Telluride.

Four other districts, Aguilar, DeBeque, Liberty and Plateau, would receive more total funding but less per pupil funding. That’s an anomaly created by adding more preschool and kindergarten students to very small enrollments.

Release of the district estimates, which has been delayed repeatedly, has been anxiously awaited by district leaders and education lobbyists. The figures are expected to affect district and lawmaker attitudes in the coming debates on the bill after it is introduced.

The Denver Democrat released an initial draft of his bill on Feb. 18 and has been working since then to gather more input on his ideas and to craft changes. The other prime sponsors are Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, and Rep. Millie Hamner, D-Dillon. Heath was the author of an unsuccessful 2011 ballot measure to increase taxes for schools. Hamner is chair of the House Education Committee.

Voter approval key to the plan

Johnston has been conducting an extraordinarily active campaign to raise support for his ideas. But key interests, including the governor’s office, elements of the business community and some districts, aren’t fully on board with the plan, especially the idea of going to the voters in November 2013.

But Johnston said he remains convinced next November is the best time to put the issue to voters and is confident he has wide support in the education and business communities.

“I certainly can’t speak for the governor, where he’ll be,” Johnston said.

Lt. Gov. Joe Garcia, the administration’s point person on education, told EdNews earlier this week that the governor still hasn’t made up his mind on the question of an education ballot issue.

“I don’t think the governor has a timeline,” Garcia said. “The governor is committed to working as quickly as possible.” While acknowledging that “timing is an issue here,” Garcia said Hickenlooper is interested in “making sure it’s the right question [on the ballot] that gets to the right solution.”

Johnston and allies who are working on the ballot issue face some tight timelines. March 22 is the deadline for submitting proposed language to the state (proponents can submit multiple proposals with different wordings). April 5 is the deadline for review of proposals and submission to the secretary of state.

The state requires 86,105 valid signatures of registered voters to put a proposal on the ballot. The deadline for submitting signatures is Aug. 5.

This story was changed on March 13 to correct statewide per-pupil figures.

Inside Senate Bill 13-213

Notable increases

  • $1 billion more for K-12 schools, if approved by voters
  • $600 per-student grant to districts for implementing reform laws
  • $100 million for an innovation fund districts could use for such things as longer school days and years
  • $80 million increase in special education funding for students with more severe disabilities
  • $6 million to provide “additional career opportunities” for highly effective teachers
  • $5 million to launch the new student count system a create a financial reporting system

Key elements of the bill

Base funding

Overall K-12 funding would be increased by about $1 billion.

Enrollment counts would be based on average daily membership counts, collected four times a year from school districts.

District funding would be calculated using prior year enrollment figures.

Multi-year averaging of enrollment losses would be retained for declining districts to soften funding cuts.

Base funding would include availability of full-day kindergarten for all students and full per-pupil funding of all high school students regardless of how many classes they take.

Additional half-day preschool slots for at-risk four-year-olds would not be included in the per-pupil base because that program is funded separately.

Adjustments to base funding

The current formula includes “factors” designed to increase funding for individual districts based on their regional cost of living, numbers of at-risk students, size and other characteristics. Johnston would retain some of those – to be called “weights” – but with some changes.

The definition of at-risk students would be expanded to also include those eligible for reduced-price lunch, in addition to those eligible for free lunches.

The number of English learners in a district would become a weight.

Double weights would be assigned for students who are both at-risk and English language learners. State at-risk funding would be more targeted to individual schools than it is now.

The small-enrollment weight would be retained only for districts under 4,300 students, taking out some districts that now receive that funding, and the current district cost-of-living weight would be eliminated.

Categorical funding

Districts currently receive additional funding outside of the main formula to help with such costs as special education, gifted and talented programs and transportation.

Johnston’s bill would retain most of those funding streams but increase by $80 million the money available for special education.

State & local shares

The bill would set a 60/40 goal for the ratio of state and local contributions to school funding. That would be used as a base to calculate the expected contribution from districts, based on a district’s property value, median resident income and concentration of poverty. Districts that aren’t contributing the amount of local revenue needed to meet their share would not receive additional state funds after an initial “hold unharmed” period, creating an “incentive” for them to seek tax increases from their voters. (This affects about two-dozen districts, and the provisions have been softened from the original draft of the bill.)

Other provisions

The state would provide matching money for districts with low property values that want to raise local taxes but can’t generate much revenue from those local increases.

An innovation fund would be created that districts could use for such things as longer school days and years.

There would be an increase in the current limits on local tax increases.

There would be additional state funding, proposed to start at $600 per student, to help districts implement state reform requirements. These funds are intended to give districts an infusion of cash to partially offset the budget cuts of recent years but would not be included in the per-pupil base so as not to put future pressure on the state budget. In the most recent version of the bill, the $600 amount would increase as revenues increase.

The proposal would not eliminate the “negative factor,” the formula used in recent years to cut what school funding otherwise would have been to the levels the legislature felt it could afford in tight budget years.

Charter schools

Districts will be required to share revenue with their charter schools from local tax increases.

There would be increased special education funding for charters.

At-risk funding would be based on actual enrollment of such students at charter schools.

The state would give extra money to schools overseen by the Charter School Institute based on a percentage of local tax increases successfully passed by districts.

There would be special enrollment counting provisions to avoid penalizing fast-growing charters.

Measuring impact

The legislature would commission an initial study of the full cost of the K-12 systems, with updates every four years. Those subsequent studies also would review whether spending is producing educational improvements and higher student achievement.

Future of Schools

CPS $1 billion capital budget hearings: Questions, demands, and mixed feelings

PHOTO: Elaine Chen
Community members gave passionate testimonies at a public hearing at Malcolm X College for the proposed capital budget.

Chicago Public Schools surprised many when it dropped its biggest facility spending plan a few weeks ago with a big “B”—that stands for billion—in the headline.

Considering that the district had planned to spend less than $200 million on capital needs for the 2018-2019 school year, this plan represents a five-fold increase. It relies largely on bonds to pay for building improvements and introduces new schools amid steadily shrinking enrollment, mostly in areas around gentrifying neighborhoods.

Divergent opinions surrounding the capital budget emerged at three concurrent community meetings CPS held Thursday night at City Colleges sites around Chicago: Malcolm X, Harry S. Truman, and Kennedy-King. The Chicago Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the district’s $7.58 billion budget, including the capital plan, on July 25.

At the Malcolm X meeting, CPS Senior Policy Advisor Cameron Mock presented a map showing capital budget projects distributed evenly throughout the city, but, as CPS Chief Financial Officer Jennie Bennett acknowledged, “not all projects are equal.”

Bennett explained that “the allocation of these projects were really in large part due to feedback about need.”

Chalkbeat mapped out the costliest capital projects, and found that the West side, particularly the Southwest side, received the smallest concentration of large investments.

The map shows investments in facility needs over $5 million, all programmatic investments, all investments in overcrowding relief, investments in site improvements over $500,000, as well as sites of the two new classical schools. The map does not show the two new schools in Belmont Cragin and the Near West Side, because the district has not yet specified exact locations. The district also has not yet identified schools for many of its capital projects, such as technology and facility upgrades. See the full plan here.

At Thursday’s hearings, parents from schools that did receive significant funding, such as Christopher Elementary School in Gage Park and Hancock High School in West Elsdon, expressed thanks. But others asked for for more investment.

Residents questioned the plan to build a new $70 million high school on the Near West Side. Lori Edwards, a Local School Council member at Crane Medical Prep on the Near West Side, said that Crane desperately needed air conditioning and heating, doors with windows, and security cameras.

“I’m surprised that we can’t just get basic things instead of building a new high school,” she said.

Questions also surrounded the $44 million assigned for a new elementary school in Belmont Cragin on the Northwest Side to address overcrowding. A sophomore at Prosser High School in Belmont Cragin asked for investment in her school instead. At Prosser, she said, “there needs to be reconstruction in the classrooms, the paint on the walls is falling off.”

Leticia Neri, a mother of two students at Camras Elementary School in Belmont Cragin, was wary of adding a school to the neighborhood. Her children used to attend Burbank Elementary, which is also in Belmont Cragin. When Acero Roberto Clemente, a charter school, opened just two blocks down in 2013, she said that Burbank lost pupils.

However, Mock said the proposed new school was a response to demand in Belmont Cragin. And in fact, several miles north in Uptown, where CPS’s Chief Operating Officer Arnie Rivera and other officials led a meeting Thursday, a handful of Belmont Cragin residents argued in favor of the school.

Parent Mariela Estrada said Belmont Cragin Elementary, which her 9-year-old attends,  is overcrowded. While the district’s formula doesn’t label any Belmont Cragin school overcrowded, the numbers paint a different picture. Belmont Cragin Elementary’s 414 students share a building with Northwest Middle School’s 545 pupils.

“I am really, really grateful right now for what we are getting,” she said.

The North Side, as the map above shows, will receive the most capital funding. Several attendees expressed gratitude for investments in area schools, especially a new ADA compliant gym at McCutcheon Elementary in Uptown, and an expanded test-in Decatur Classical School program in West Ridge, that will add seventh and eighth grades. Students have to test into the city’s five highly competitive classical schools, and hundreds are turned away every year.

Even so, not all North Side residents felt their schools would receive what they need, and many questioned CPS’ process for planning improvements.

A mother of a student at Schurz High School, in Old Irving Park, thanked CPS for a plans to install a new athletic field, but mentioned the school’s leaky roof, faulty heating system, green and black mold under carpets, and peeling paint in the auditorium. “It’s gross,” she said.

Parent Dawne Moon, said Kilmer Elementary School in Rogers Park is “not currently a safe environment.” Moon, a Local School Council member,  complained of rusted lockers, “bathrooms that smell like urine, even after they are cleaned,” temporary covers over holes in the roof that keeps water from pouring into classrooms, and of bricks falling from the ceiling in the school’s gym.  

“We can hope that the next brick doesn’t fall on a kid,” she said.

Betsy Vandercook, co-chair of the education committee at Network 49, a progressive neighborhood group based in Rogers Park, said schools in her neighborhood would get less than what adjacent communities like Edgewater and West Rogers Park would receive.

“Rogers Park is not, for whatever reason getting the same resources that many other North Side communities are getting,” she said about the capital budget proposal. “Take this back, look at it again, look at what is and isn’t needed.”


Boundary lines of proposed South Loop high school drive wedge between communities

PHOTO: Cassie Walker Burke
About 30 speakers weighed in on a boundary proposal for a new South Loop high school at a public meeting at IIT.

The parent, wearing an “I Love NTA” T-shirt, said it loudly and directly toward the end of the public comment section Thursday night. “It sickens me to be here today and see so many people fighting for scraps,” said Kawana Hebron, in a public meeting on the boundaries for a proposed South Loop high school on the current site of National Teachers Academy. “Every community on this map is fighting for scraps.”

The 1,200-student high school, slated to open for the 2019-2020 school year near the corner of Cermak Road and State Street, has become a wedge issue dividing communities and races on the Near South Side.

Supporters of NTA, which is a 82 percent black elementary school, say pressure from wealthy white and Chinese families is leading the district to shutter its exceptional 1-plus rated program. A lawsuit filed in Circuit Court of Cook County in June by parents and supporters contends the decision violates the Illinois Civil Rights Code. 

But residents of Chinatown and the condo-and-crane laden South Loop have lobbied for an open-enrollment high school for years and that the district is running out of places to put one.

“I worry for my younger brother,” said a 15-year-old who lives between Chinatown and Bridgeport and travels north to go to the highly selective Jones College Prep. She said that too many students compete for too few seats in the nail-biting process to get into a selective enrollment high school. Plus, she worries about the safety, and environment, of the schools near her home. “We want something close, but good.”

PHOTO: Courtesy of Chicago Public Schools
The “general attendance” boundary for the proposed South Loop high school is outlined in blue. The neighborhoods outlined in red would receive “preference,” but they would not be guaranteed seats.

One by one, residents of Chinatown or nearby spoke in favor of the high school at the meeting in Hermann Hall at the Illinois Institute of Technology. They described their long drives, their fearfulness of dropping off children in schools with few, if any, Chinese students, and their concerns about truancy and poor academics at some neighboring open-enrollment high schools.

But their comments were sandwiched by dissenting views. A member of South Loop Elementary’s Local School Council argued that Chicago Public Schools has not established a clear process when it comes to shuttering an elementary and spending $10 million to replace it with a high school. “CPS scheduled this meeting at the same time as a capital budget meeting,” she complained.

She was followed by another South Loop parent who expressed concerns about potential overcrowding, the limited $10 million budget for the conversion, and the genesis of the project. “It’s a terrible way to start a new high school – on the ashes of a good elementary school,” the parent said.

The most persistent critique Thursday night was not about the decision to close NTA, but, rather, of the boundary line that would determine who gets guaranteed access and who doesn’t. The GAP, a diverse middle-class neighborhood bordered by 31st on the north, 35th on the South, King Drive to the east and LaSalle Street to the west, sits just outside the proposed boundary. A parade of GAP residents said they’ve been waiting for decades for a good option for their children but have been locked out in this iteration of the map. Children who live in the GAP would have “preference” status but would not be guaranteed access to seats.

“By not including our children into the guaranteed access high school boundaries – they are being excluded from high-quality options,” said Claudia Silva-Hernandez, the mother of two children, ages 5 and 7. “Our children deserve the peace of mind of a guaranteed-access option just like the children of South Loop, Chinatown, and Bridgeport.”

Leonard E. McGee, the president of the GAP Community Organization, said that tens of millions in tax-increment financing dollars – that is, money that the city collects on top of property tax revenues that is intended for economic development in places that need it most – originated from the neighborhood in the 1980s and went to help fund the construction of NTA. But not many of the area’s students got seats there.

Asked how he felt about the high school pitting community groups against each other, he paused. “If we’re all fighting for scraps, it must be a good scrap we’re fighting for.”

The meeting was run by Herald “Chip” Johnson, chief officer of CPS’ Office of Family and Community Engagement. He said that detailed notes from the meeting will be handed over to the office of CEO Janice Jackson. She will make a final recommendation to the Board of Education, which will put the plan up for a vote.