FIXING PENNSYLVANIA’S INEFFECTIVE K-12 FUNDING SYSTEM: ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS? The 4th Annual...
12
FIXING PENNSYLVANIA’S FIXING PENNSYLVANIA’S INEFFECTIVE K-12 FUNDING INEFFECTIVE K-12 FUNDING SYSTEM: SYSTEM: ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS? ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS? The 4th Annual The 4th Annual Education Policy and Leadership Education Policy and Leadership Conference Conference Harrisburg, PA – March 2006 Harrisburg, PA – March 2006 Presentation By: Eric Elliott, PSEA Research Division [email protected]
-
Upload
cleopatra-fox -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
3
Transcript of FIXING PENNSYLVANIA’S INEFFECTIVE K-12 FUNDING SYSTEM: ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS? The 4th Annual...
FIXING PENNSYLVANIA’S FIXING PENNSYLVANIA’S INEFFECTIVE K-12 FUNDING INEFFECTIVE K-12 FUNDING
SYSTEM:SYSTEM:ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS?ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS?
The 4th AnnualThe 4th Annual
Education Policy and Leadership Education Policy and Leadership ConferenceConference
Harrisburg, PA – March 2006Harrisburg, PA – March 2006
Presentation By:
Eric Elliott, PSEA Research Division
TARGETING BY AID RATIOTARGETING BY AID RATIO
• MEASURES DISTRICT WEALTH RELATIVE TO STATE AVG.
• THEORY: STATE’S SHARE OF ACTUAL INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENSES
• PROS:– FAMILIAR– STABLE (PREDICTABLE)
• CONS:– BASED ON QUESTIONABLE ESTIMATES AND
ASSUMPTIONS– FLOOR
MAJOR SUBSIDIES HITTING MAJOR SUBSIDIES HITTING TARGET (SORT OF)TARGET (SORT OF)
2002-03 Major Subsidies per Pupil by Aid RatioIncl: Basic, Special Ed, Voc Ed, Performance Grants, and Read-to-Succeed Dollars per ADM
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000
2002-03 MV/PI Aid Ratio
2002
-03
Maj
or
Su
bsi
die
s p
er A
DM
Correlation = .8886
Wealthier Less Wealthy
ADDITIONAL MONEY HAS ADDITIONAL MONEY HAS FOLLOWED PATTERNFOLLOWED PATTERN
2006-07 Proposed Change in Major Subsidies per Student from 2002-03Incl: Basic, Special, Vocational, Acc'ntability Grants, and EAP Dollars per ADM
-$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
2002-03 MV/PI Aid Ratio
2006
-07
Ch
ang
e in
Maj
or
Su
bsi
die
s p
er A
DM
fro
m 2
002-
03 Correlation = .8123
Wealthier Less Wealthy
SO PATTERN REMAINS IN 2006-07SO PATTERN REMAINS IN 2006-072006-07 Major Subsidies per Pupil by Aid Ratio
Incl: Basic, Special, Vocational, Acc'ntability Grants, and EAP Dollars per ADM
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
2006-07 MV/PI Aid Ratio
2006
-07
Maj
or
Su
bsi
die
s p
er A
DM
Correlation = .8851
Wealthier Less Wealthy
TARGETING BY TAXES AND TEST TARGETING BY TAXES AND TEST SCORESSCORES
• ADMINISTRATION, LEGISLATURE FOCUSING ON TAXES (POSSIBLE REFERENDA)
• FEDS FOCUSING ON STUDENT A.Y.P. (POSSIBLE SANCTIONS)
• AID RATIO NOT CORRELATED WITH THESE
• PROS:– DIRECTS MONEY TOWARD POLICY PROBLEMS– SIMPLE, FEW “CLIFFS” (IF ANY)
• CONS:– UNFAMILIAR– UNSTABLE ? (FOCUS COULD SHIFT AGAIN IN
FUTURE)
MAJOR SUBSIDIES WEREN’T HITTING MAJOR SUBSIDIES WEREN’T HITTING TARGET AREATARGET AREA2002-03 Major Subsidies per Student by Tax Effort and Proficiency Targets
Incl: Basic, Special Ed, Voc Ed, Performance Grants, and Read-to-Succeed Dollars per ADM(Not Shown: Top 5 Taxing Districts--in Poconos)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%TAX EFFORT
2002-03 Household School Taxes as % of PI
PR
OF
ICIE
NC
Y20
03-
04 %
Pro
fici
ent
(Rea
din
g)
Width of bubbles: 2002-03 Level of "Major Subsidy" (Basic, Special, Vocational, Performance Grants, and Reading) per 2002-03 ADM.Green: greater than $4,091 per pupil (HIghest 125 districts). Red: less than $1,944 per pupil (Lowest 125 districts).
median=3.12%
2008-09 AYP Rdng Target=63%
Low Tax, High Proficiency
Low Tax, Low Proficiency
High Tax, High Proficiency
High Tax, Low Proficiency
TARGET AREAMany of these districts are not well-served by existing distribution
system.
Philadelphia
Wm Penn
Reading
Chester-Upland
WilkinsburgSE Delco
Morrisville
Pittsburgh
Allentown
Bristol Twp
Coatesville
Avon Grove
Wdlnd Hills
Norristown
Fleetwood Area
Blue Ridge
Scranton
Shnksvl-Stonycrk
Harrisburg
Northgate
Neshaminy Pottsgrove
Duquesne
Steelton-Highspire
Austin AreaSayre Area
Baldwin-Whthl
Weatherly
South Side
Bnslm Twp
Plsnt. Val.
RECENT BUDGETS HAVE HELPED…RECENT BUDGETS HAVE HELPED…2006-07 Proposed Change in Major Subsidies per Student from 2002-03
Incl: Basic, Special, Vocational, Acc'ntability Grants, and EAP Dollars per ADM
(Not Shown: Top 5 Taxing Districts--in Poconos)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%TAX EFFORT
2002-03 Household School Taxes as % of PI
PR
OF
ICIE
NC
Y
2003
-04
% P
rofi
cien
t (R
ead
ing
)
Width of bubbles: Change in "Major Subsidy" from 2002-03 to 2006-07 (Proposed) per 2002-03 ADM.Green: incr. over 2002-03 greater than $800 per ADM (Highest 125 districts). Red: incr. over 2002-03 less than $324 per ADM (Lowest 125 districts).
median=3.12%
2008-09 AYP Rdng Target=63%
Low Tax, High Proficiency
Low Tax, Low Proficiency
High Tax, High Proficiency
High Tax, Low Proficiency
Philadelphia
Duquesne
Reading
Steelton-Highspire
Chester-Upland
Harrisburg
Wm Penn
Wilkinsburg
South Side
SE Delco
Pittsburgh
Allentown
Norristown
TARGET AREA
Wdlnd Hills
ScrantonSayre Area
Bristol Twp
Morrisville
Austin AreaCoatesville
Blue Ridge
Fleetwood Area
Avon Grove
Shnksvl-Stonycrk
PottsgroveNeshaminy
Northgate
Weatherly
Baldwin-Whthl
Bnslm Twp
Plsnt. Val.
……BUT HAVEN’T BEEN ENOUGHBUT HAVEN’T BEEN ENOUGH2006-07 Prop'd. Major Subsidies per ADM by Tax and Proficiency Targets
Incl: Basic, Special, Vocational, Acc'ntability Grants, and EAP Dollars per ADM(Not Shown: Top 5 Taxing Districts--in Poconos)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00%TAX EFFORT
2002-03 Household School Taxes as % of PI
PR
OF
ICIE
NC
Y2
00
3-0
4 %
Pro
fic
ien
t (R
ead
ing
)
Width of bubbles: 2002-03 Level of "Major Subsidy" (Basic, Special, Vocational, Performance Grants, and Reading) per 2002-03 ADM.Green: greater than $4,900 per pupil (HIghest 125 districts). Red: less than $2,309 per pupil (Lowest 125 districts).
median=3.12%
2008-09 AYP Rdng Target=63%
Low Tax, High Proficiency
Low Tax, Low Proficiency
High Tax, High Proficiency
High Tax, Low Proficiency
TARGET AREAMany of these districts are not well-served by existing distribution
system.
Philadelphia
Wm Penn
Reading
Chester-Upland
WilkinsburgSE Delco
Morrisville
Pittsburgh
Allentown
Bristol Twp
Coatesville
Avon Grove
Wdlnd Hills
Norristown
Fleetwood Area
Blue Ridge
Scranton
Shnksvl-Stonycrk
Harrisburg
Northgate
Neshaminy Pottsgrove
Duquesne
Steelton-Highspire
Austin AreaSayre Area
Baldwin-Whthl
Weatherly
South Side
Bnslm Twp
Plsnt. Val.
CORRELATIONSCORRELATIONSPER PUPIL INCREASES IN BEF AND AID RATIO 2006-07
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 0.4000 0.5000 0.6000 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000
2006-07 MVPI Aid Ratio
Pro
po
sed
Ch
ang
e in
BE
F /
AD
M 2
006-
07
CORRELATIONSCORRELATIONSPER PUPIL INCREASES IN BEF AND TAX EFFORT 2006-07
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
2004-05 Local Tax Effort
Pro
po
se
d C
ha
ng
e i
n B
EF
/ A
DM
200
6-0
7
CORRELATIONSCORRELATIONSPER PUPIL INCREASES IN BEF AND PROFICIENCY 2006-07
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
2003-04 % Proficient in Reading (Grade 11)
Pro
po
se
d C
ha
ng
e i
n B
EF
/ A
DM
20
06
-07
