Property Taxes, School Funding issues | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
INITIAL CONCERNS: Department of
Concern: Leveling down of quality education. Per pupil cost measures must be substantial enough to assure that they can support effective student achievement goals and objectives.
Concern: Wealth equalizing of special education aid – Keep as a categorical aid
Since special education programs are mandated for individual children no matter where they live, it is reasonable for the funding support & programs for those individual children to be the same no matter where they live. Special education support for students should not be reduced due a wealth-based calculation distributed according to district wealth, as opposed to individual student needs.
Concern: Minimum Aid is proposed for all districts
GSCS supports the concept, but points out that this can be better achieve both in terms of equity and effectiveness, by increasing the state share of special education categorical aid to classified students in all districts. No district over another is favored in the categorical aid method.
Concern: Ability-to-Pay
This formula needs to be disclosed, and the data run and published as soon as possible so that it can be reviewed, with an eye on significant change possibilities, and the probability of unintended consequences.
Attendant Concern: “Hard Caps”
Reasonable caps differ from hard caps. In the proposed funding plan, hard caps apply cross the board with no exception allowed other than enrollment growth…. The data speaks loudly – these two factors alone (increase in health benefits and special education costs) made up 61.5% of local levy growth from FY02 to FY06- and makes clear that hard caps will have a negative impact on quality education. There is further stress on local districts now due to uncertainty concerning health benefits since the Governor’s recent removal of health benefits reform from the special session legislative proposal package.
1 - 500,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,500,000,000 2,000,000,000 2,500,000,000 Dollars Growth in ROD (Regular Operating District) Health Benefits & Special Ed Expenditures vs. Local Levy Growth: '01-02 & '05-06 Growth in Sp Ed & Health Ben Costs 1,462,550,083 Growth In Local Levy 2,378,240,756 1 61.5% of the growth in local levy in regular operating districts from FY02 to FY06 (the same years that the state school aid formula, CEIFA, has not been implemented) has been due to increases in cost driver increases in special education and health benefits alone.
FY02 to FY06 SPECIAL EDUCATION & HEALTH BENEFITS EXPENDITURES | ||
IN REGULAR OPERATING DISTRICTS (RODs) v. GROWTH IN LOCAL LEVIES | ||
ROD Levy Growth 0206 |
2,378,240,758 |
|
ROD Sp Ed Growth 0206 |
678,570,214 |
.2853% of ROD levy growth |
ROD Health Bens Growth 0206 |
783,979,869 |
.3296% of ROD levy growth |
ROD Sp Ed+ Health Ben Growth = |
1,462,550,083 |
.61497% of ROD levy growth |