Darien Public Schools District #61 - DuPage County
OCTOBER 25, 2016
Belief, Mission, Vision Statements
Whereas We Believe -
• that learning is a lifelong journey; • that the purpose of education is to prepare people to be responsible, productive and cooperative citizens; • that learning should take place in a safe, healthy and positive environment; • that all have rights, roles, and responsibilities for which they are accountable; • that teachers and good teaching practices are vital to the success of our students and our schools; • that the district is responsible for providing its programs and services in a fiscally responsible manner; • that the success of our schools depends upon a partnership among students, parents, community, staff, board, and local resources.
The Mission of the Darien Public Schools #61 is -
To empower each and every student to learn in a caring and safe environment.
And the Vision of the Darien School District #61 is -
That all students have sufficient skills, understandings, and personal characteristics for learning, working, and living fully including:
• self-motivation and the desire to be life long learners; • the ability to think critically; • respect for selves, others, and the environment; • an understanding and appreciation of the arts as a means of expression and communication; • the ability to use technology effectively; • the ability to participate in and contribute to society. • a sense of responsibility.
That all staff are highly qualified and possess:
• the ability to meet the diverse needs of our student population; • the desire to continually improve curriculum development and educational delivery methods; • intrinsic motivation to be life long learners along with their students; • caring and nurturing qualities
That facilities are safe, clean, and inviting to students and community.
That the District be financially stable through sound management practices.
That the students, parents, staff, and community experience ownership of, satisfaction with, and responsibility for the District, including:
• participation in open and frank dialogue around expectations; • active parental involvement DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #61 – DU PAGE COUNTY DARIEN, ILLINOIS
Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Regular Board of Education Meeting – Lace School – 7:00 P.M. Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Closed Session during Regular Meeting
Lace School 7414 Cass Avenue Darien, Illinois
Board of Education Janine Kiwiet, President Katherine Fujiura, Vice-President Gregory Leban, Secretary Iranell Spann, Member Melissa Christie, Member Jane Moss, Member Joseph Tortorich, Member
Administration Robert M. Carlo, Superintendent and Clerk of the Board Megan Stoltz, Chief School Business Official and Treasurer
Finance Committee of the Whole Facilities Committee Policy Committee Katie Fujiura, Chairperson Gregory Leban, Chairperson Melissa Christie, Chairperson Iranell Spann Jane Moss Joseph Tortorich Katie Fujiura
IASB Delegate LEND Representative Iranell Spann Janine Kiwiet
Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 30 31
Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 26 27 28
Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17 S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 30
DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #61 – DUPAGE COUNTY DARIEN, ILLINOIS
DATES OF FUTURE BOARD MEETINGS/ACTIVITIES
OCTOBER 25, 2016 AT LACE SCHOOL 7:00 P.M. REGULAR BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING CLOSED SESSION during Regular Meeting Session to discuss the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, lease of property owned by the public body, and litigation.
NOVEMBER 15, 2016 AT LACE SCHOOL 7:00 P.M. REGULAR BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING
NOVEMBER 18-20, 2016 AT CHICAGO IASA/IASB/IASBO JOINT CONFERENCE
DECEMBER 20, 2016 AT LACE SCHOOL 7:00 P.M. REGULAR BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING
Any individual with a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in any Board meeting should contact Dr. Robert M. Carlo or Mrs. Megan Stoltz, ADA Co- Compliance Officers, within a reasonable time before the meeting. Rev. 10/20/16
DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #61 – DU PAGE COUNTY DARIEN, ILLINOIS
ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR REGULAR MEETING – TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2016 LACE SCHOOL – 7:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order: Melissa Christie, Katie Fujiura, Janine Kiwiet, Gregory Leban, Jane Moss, Iranell Spann, Joseph Tortorich. II. Additions to the Agenda. III. Audience Participation, Communications, Notices, and Announcements A. *FOIA request, (letter to Bob Carlo dated September 20, 2016), from Mary Zellers, Impact Networking, LLC, for lease agreements and invoices for printer and copier equipment. (The response was made in a timely manner.) B. *FOIA request, (email to Bob Carlo dated September 26, 2016) from Katy Smyser, NBC5Chicago, asking which schools, if any, have in stock, undesignated epinephrine auto-injectors. (The response was made in a timely manner.) C. *Thank you note from Diane Whitesides for floral arrangement D. Dr. Carol Schultz and Ms. Erin Dwyer will be presenting on November 3, 2016 at the Illinois Council for Exceptional Children Conference – Topic: Co-Teaching Data Collection E. Dr. Schultz has been asked to conduct an on-line Administrative Academy: Co-Teaching: Developing, Managing, and Implementing a K-8 Program. This is being offered through the Illinois Principals Association F. School Board Member Day – November 15, 2016. IV. Consent Agenda Items A. Approval of Minutes 1. *Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 2. *Closed Session Meeting – September 27, 2016 B. Receipt of Treasurer’s Report C. Receipt of Investment Report D. Education Fund - $941,452.06 E. Operations and Maintenance Fund - $81,441.60 F. Debt Service Fund (Bond & Interest) - $2,411.00 G. Transportation Fund - $68,501.71 H. Construction Fund - $-0- I. Approval of Payroll J. Approval of Bills K. Student Activity Reports 1. EJH (Sept) 2. Lace (Sept) The Mission of the Darien Public Schools #61 is - To empower each and every student to learn in a caring and safe environment.
3. Mark DeLay (Sept) 4. KIDS Club (Aug/Sept) L. Monthly Safety Inspection Reports 1. EJH (Sept) 2. Lace (Sept) 3. Mark DeLay (Sept) M. Approval of Personnel Report 1. Recommendations of Employment a. *None 2. Terminations/Resignations a. *None 3. Leaves of Absence a. *Sally Burke, request for medical leave b. *Jennifer Reyes, request for 12-week leave c. *Puja Ramaswamy, request for 12-week leave 4. Retirements a. *Mary Lang, Secretary to the Superintendent. V. Superintendent’s Report A. *Technology and Curriculum Integration B. *Survey Results, SIP Day, September 23, 2016 C. *Enrollment Report D. *Curriculum and Assessment update – District Committee members E. Update on LaGrange School District 102 withdrawal F. School Report Card and Achievement/Growth Data G. 5Essentials report H. *Illinois School Funding Reform Commission 1. Upcoming meetings 2. Minutes – September 21, 2016 3. Meeting 5 Agenda – October 5, 2016 4. Funding Formula 5. 4 Stakeholders 6. Meeting 6 Agenda – October 19, 2016 7. Tom Johnson biography 8. William Hinrichs vitae 9. Tax Increment Financing and School Funding Maryland TIF draft 10. K-12 Funding Formula: Research updates – April 25, 2016 11. Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card I. *2016 Summer School final report J. IASB/LEND/Legislative Update 1. Tri-Conference update 2. 2016 Resolutions (Committee Report provided to the Board at the September meeting) 3. DuPage Division meeting discussion 4. *Invitation for Annual LEND Breakfast, Saturday, November 19, 2016 The Mission of the Darien Public Schools #61 is - To empower each and every student to learn in a caring and safe environment.
5. Technology Replacement. VI. Report of Committees A. Finance Committee 1. *Lunch Revenue/Expense report 2. Investment update 3. *Food Service update B. Facilities Committee 1. Communication Tower: Request to lease land around water tower 2. *Dehumidification Project proposal 3. *Lease Agreement C. Policy Committee D. Darien District #61 Educational Foundation. VII. Unfinished Business A. Board Member Handbook – feedback. VIII. New Business IX. Audience Participation. X. Closed Session. Three areas to cover: 1. the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body; 2. lease of property owned by the public body; 3. litigation. It is anticipated that action will be taken after Closed Session. XI. Adjournment.
The Mission of the Darien Public Schools #61 is - To empower each and every student to learn in a caring and safe environment.
Districts honor school board members for their educational leadership and community efforts
Darien Public Schools, District #61 is joining communities throughout the state to say “thank you” to local school board members on November 15, 2016. The date is officially designated each year as School Board Members Day in Illinois to recognize these public servants for their commitment and contributions to our public schools.
“Board of education members take the lead on tough decisions which must be made on significant issues which affect not only our school, but the entire community. Their choices impact so many aspects of our daily lives that I think we often overlook the service they provide that allows our community to grow and thrive.” said Dr. Robert M. Carlo, District #61 superintendent. “They are truly the leaders helping to shape our society.”
As community trustees for the schools, school board members have oversight in District #61 for an annual budget of $15 million; more than 1400 students in grades Pre-school to 8; 220 employees; and 3 school buildings.
“Board members give up their personal time and their family time because they understand the importance of local governance in our educational system. They sacrifice a great deal to ensure students have a quality education system that prepares them for college or career, and to be leaders in the 21st century,” Dr. Carlo said. “On November 15 we recognize their efforts and show how much we appreciate the service they have volunteered for our students and community.”
To honor school board members in Darien District #61 plans to present each board member with a certificate of appreciation.
“The definition of leadership is the ability to lead other people or an organization. School board members embody that definition. They are leaders within our community, for our students and our schools, and they are leaders protecting our local education decisions,” Dr. Carlo said.
The Darien District #61 board of education members are:
Janine Kiwiet, President 6th year of service Katherine Fujiura, Vice-President 20th year of service Gregory Leban, Secretary 2nd year of service Iranell Spann, Board Member 4th year of service Melissa Christie, Board Member 4th year of service Jane Moss, Board Member 2nd year of service Joseph Tortorich, Board Member 1st year of service DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #61 – DU PAGE COUNTY DARIEN, IL
BOARD OF EDUCATION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
______President
______Secretary
______Date
DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #61 – DU PAGE COUNTY DARIEN, ILLINOIS
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
MINUTES
President Janine Kiwiet called the Regular Meeting of the Darien District #61 Board of Education to order at 7:02 P.M. on September 27, 2016.
Board Members Present: Katie Fujiura, Janine Kiwiet, Gregory Leban, Jane Moss, Joseph Tortorich.
Board Members Absent: Iranell Spann, Melissa Christie.
Others Present: Bob Carlo, Megan Stoltz, Kevin Cherep.
Under Additions to the Agenda, the following items were added: 1. 2016 Resolutions Committee Report 2. Tower Proposal - informational
Before beginning Audience Participation, Janine Kiwiet read the Audience Participation statement.
Under Audience Participation, Communications, Notices, and Announcements, Janine Kiwiet shared a thank you note from Nicole deVerdier for floral arrangement.
Janine Kiwiet shared information on The Community Speaker Series presented by District #86 and District #181.
Janine Kiwiet shared an article on the recent performance of the Eisenhower Junior High School band’s participation in the recent Darienfest. This information was obtained from the Chicago Tribune.
Dr. Carlo shared Board of Education election information for the April, 2017 election.
Dr. Carlo shared a thank you letter from Good Shepherd Evangelical Lutheran Church And School for donated projectors.
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 1 of 8
Janine Kiwiet shared an invitation from the Darien Historical Society to attend the dedication of their newest exhibit.
Under the Consent Agenda, the following items were presented for approval: A. Approval of Minutes 1. Regular Board of Education Meeting – August 23, 2016 2. Closed Session Meeting - August 23, 2016 B. Receipt of Treasurer’s Report C. Receipt of Investment Report D. Education Fund - $164,363.04 E. Operations and Maintenance Fund - $34,370.87 F. Debt Service Fund (Bond & Interest) - $2,411.00 G. Transportation Fund - $4,613.14 H. Construction Fund - $850.00 I. Approval of Payroll J. Approval of Bills K. Student Activity Reports 1. EJH (Aug) 2. Lace (Aug) 3. Mark DeLay (Aug) 4. KIDS Club (Budget) L. Monthly Safety Inspection Reports 1. EJH (Aug) 2. Lace (Aug) 3. Mark DeLay (Aug) M. Approval of Personnel Report 1. Recommendations of Employment a. Carlie Serritella, Kindergarten aide at Mark DeLay b. Joanna Petersen, Library aide at Lace 2. Terminations/Resignations a. Stephanie Pragides, ELL aide at Lace 3. Leaves of Absence a. None 4. Retirements a. None.
Gregory Leban moved and it was seconded by Joseph Tortorich to approve the Consent Agenda items as presented.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban, Moss, Tortorich. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 2 of 8
Under the Superintendent’s Report, Dr. Carlo shared survey results from the August 22nd and August 23rd, 2016 Teacher Institutes.
Dr. Carlo shared minutes from the August 16th and September 7th, 2016 Illinois School Funding Reform Commission meetings.
Dr. Carlo provided an updated calendar listing of School Board responsibilities.
Dr. Carlo shared a request from Matt Janus for the band trip to St. Louis, April 6-9, 2017.
Katie Fujiura moved and it was seconded by Jane Moss to approve the request from Matt Janus for the band trip to St. Louis, April 6-9, 2017.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Kiwiet, Leban, Moss, Tortorich, Fujiura. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Dr. Carlo shared the Certified Staff and Educational Support Personnel seniority lists.
Janine Kiwiet questioned missing leaves for individuals on the Certified Staff seniority list. These leaves were missing on the list and will be added to the Certified Staff seniority list.
Dr. Carlo shared updated job descriptions for the Registered District Nurse, Certified District Nurse, and Health Aide. These updates were made due to changes made to roles in the District.
Joseph Tortorich moved and it was seconded by Katie Fujiura to approve the updates made to the job descriptions for the Registered District Nurse, Certified District Nurse, and Health Aide.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Leban, Moss, Tortorich, Fujiura, Kiwiet. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Dr. Carlo provided a LADSE update. District #102 may want to pull out of LADSE.
Dr. Carlo shared information on electronic storage proposals.
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 3 of 8
Board members presented questions on the electronic storage proposals.
Katie Fujiura moved and it was seconded by Joseph Tortorich to approve the proposal from Konica Minolta for Cloud storage.
Ayes: Moss, Tortorich, Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Dr. Carlo shared information on a request to conduct research (see Policy 6:40).
Dr. Carlo shared a request from two employees to conduct research for their dissertations. The Board was provided with topics and conflict with Board Policy 6:40. They agreed with recommendation to approve the requests for research, providing specific identifiers were created for anonymity. Policy 6:40 will be reviewed.
Dr. Carlo shared the Public Act 96-034 – District Compensation Report and the EIS Administrative & Teacher Salary & Benefits Report, School Year 2016. Both reports will be placed on the District #61 website.
Dr. Carlo shared the enrollment report.
Gregory Leban moved and it was seconded by Katie Fujiura to Open the Public Hearing on the FY17 Final Budget.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Tortorich, Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban, Moss. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
The Public Hearing began at 8:17 P.M.
Megan Stoltz presented the Final Draft of the FY17 Budget.
No additional comments were provided by the community.
Jane Moss moved and it was seconded by Gregory Leban to Close the Public Hearing on the FY17 Final Budget at 8:52 P.M.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban, Moss, Tortorich.
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 4 of 8
Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Katie Fujiura moved and it was seconded by Gregory Leban to approve the Final Draft of the FY17 Budget.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Kiwiet, Leban, Moss, Tortorich, Fujiura. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Dr. Carlo shared 7 Keys to Success for 1:1 Computing Program article.
Dr. Carlo shared a Resolution recognizing October as National Principal Month.
The Board asked that Principals be recognized for the work they do on a daily basis on behalf of District #61. Principals will be presented with a Certificate of Appreciation in October.
Gregory Leban moved and it was seconded by Joseph Tortorich to approve the Resolution recognizing October as National Principal Month.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Leban, Moss, Tortorich, Fujiura, Kiwiet. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Dr. Carlo shared the Application for Recognition of Schools for Eisenhower Junior High, Lace, and Mark DeLay Schools.
Joseph Tortorich moved and it was seconded by Jane Moss to approve the Application for Recognition of Schools for Eisenhower Junior High, Lace, and Mark DeLay Schools.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Moss, Tortorich, Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
Dr. Carlo shared information on the Superintendent Advisory Committee.
This year three meetings will be held in the morning consisting of a tour of one of the buildings each time. The other meeting dates will be scheduled around
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 5 of 8
the following District events: Board meeting, concert, and PTA meeting. Information will be put in Neighbors Magazine and on the District website to reach interested members.
Dr. Carlo shared a Curriculum and Assessment update.
Under the IASB/LEND/Legislative update, Dr. Carlo and Janine Kiwiet shared information on the LEND Council Meeting, September 27, 2016 (location change).
Dr. Carlo shared the Leadership Starts Here brochure from the Joint Conference in November.
Dr. Carlo shared information on the IASB Fall Dinner Meeting and Board Recognition. All Board members will be in attendance.
Dr. Carlo shared the IASB DuPage Division By-Laws. This will be discussed at the Fall Dinner meeting and voted upon by the Boards.
Dr. Carlo shared information that Board members, Gregory Leban and Jane Moss reached Level 1 Master Board Member status. They will be recognized at the upcoming Fall Dinner meeting. The board will also receive the Board Recognition Award at the dinner.
Dr. Carlo shared information that District #61 is an active member of the IASB for the 2016-2017 school year.
There was no Finance Committee report.
Under the Facilities Committee report, Dr. Carlo shared an HVAC update and a letter summarizing information on the HVAC units at Lace School.
Under the Policy Committee report, the following policies are presented for 2nd reading and approval: a. 2:70 Vacancies on the School Board – Filling Vacancies (use PRESS policy) b. 6:100 Using Animals in the Educational Program (use PRESS policy) c. 6:235 Access to Electronic Networks (revise date and add changes) d. 7:10 Equal Educational Opportunities (revise date and add changes) e. 7:270 Administering Medicines to Students (follow-up w/Nurse and Attorney)
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 6 of 8
f. 7:340 Student Records (move paragraph) g. 8:90 Parent organizations and Booster Clubs (discussion) h. 8:110 Public Suggestions and Concerns (use PRESS policy)
Katie Fujiura moved and it was seconded by Jane Moss to approve the revised policies as recommended with the removal of Policies 7:270 and 8:90 which are pulled for further review.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Tortorich, Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban, Moss. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
The following policy was updated due to changes in state law: a. 7:305 Student Athlete Concussions and Head Injuries (use PRESS policy)
Jane Moss shared the following information from the Darien District #61 Educational Foundation: 1. A total of $9,500 has been awarded to Eisenhower Junior High and Mark DeLay Schools for reading programs. 2. Mini-grant application deadline is October 15, 2016. 3. There is a possible December fundraiser.
Under Unfinished Business, Dr. Carlo shared Goals developed for the Board.
Gregory Leban moved and it was seconded by Joseph Tortorich to approve the Board Goals document as a working document.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban, Moss, Tortorich. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
The Board members received an updated copy of the School Board Members Handbook (draft 7/20/16). The Board members will review chapters 8, 9, & 10.
Under New Business, the Board members asked about the lunch program and requested an update from Mrs. Lillie for the next meeting.
Under Audience Participation, Kevin Cherep shared feedback on food at Eisenhower Junior High School and portion size.
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 7 of 8
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, Katie Fujiura moved and it was seconded by Joseph Tortorich to move to Closed Session to discuss a litigation issue and to discuss the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Tortorich, Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban, Moss. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
The Board moved to Closed Session at 10:10 P.M.
The Board reconvened to the Regular Meeting at 10:51 P.M.
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, Gregory Leban moved and it was seconded by Jane Moss to adjourn the meeting.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Fujiura, Kiwiet, Leban, Moss, Tortorich. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
The meeting adjourned at 10:52 P.M.
Regular Board of Education Meeting – September 27, 2016 Page 8 of 8
DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT #61 - DU PAGE COUNTY DARIEN, ILLINOIS
CLOSED SESSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 2016
LACE SCHOOL (During Regular Board of Education Meeting)
MINUTES
President Janine Kiwiet called the Closed Session Meeting of the Darien District #61 Board of Education to order at 10:10 P.M.
Participants stated their names as attending the meeting.
Board Members Present: Katie Fujiura, Janine Kiwiet, Gregory Leban, Jane Moss, Joseph Tortorich.
Board Members Absent: Iranell Spann, Melissa Christie.
Others Present: Bob Carlo, Megan Stoltz.
The Board discussed the following topics: • Litigation • The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body.
There was no action taken at the end of Closed Session.
There being no further business to come before the Board in Closed Session, Katie Fujiura moved and it was seconded by Joseph Tortorich to move out of Closed Session.
The roll call vote was: Ayes: Kiwiet, Leban, Moss, Tortorich, Fujiura. Nays: None. Absent: Spann, Christie.
The Board ended Closed Session at 10:51 P.M.
______President Date
______Secretary
Transaction Detail For: EJH Activity Fund
Last Month, Any Type, Any Status
Split Date Action Check # Payee Transfer Memo/Notes Payment Deposit Balance 9/12/2016 1468 Chamber Theatre 8th Grade Field 8th Grade Poe Trip -$3,177.15 $25,360.81 Productions Trip Patron #10032656 10/20 production 9/12/2016 1465 Image Market Vocal Music Choir T-Shirts -$745.00 $24,615.81 9/12/2016 1466 Julie Kowalski Cross Country Cross Country -$18.64 $24,597.17 Supplies 9/12/2016 1467 EJh Band Boosters Band Dinner Matching -$1,650.00 $22,947.17 Donation 9/13/2016 DEP Sports Booster Club Sports Booster Membership Dues $690.00 $23,637.17 Club 9/13/2016 DEP Cross Country Spirit Wear Cross Country Cross Country Spirit $672.00 $24,309.17 Wear 9/13/2016 DEP Family & Consumer Family&Consumer Sewing Kits $1,303.65 $25,612.82 Science Sci 9/14/2016 1469 Sam's Club Student Council Concessions -$73.35 $25,539.47 9/14/2016 1472 Sportdecals Sport and Cross Country Cross Country T- -$666.88 $24,872.59 Spirit Products Shirts 9/14/2016 1473 Sportdecals Sport and Volleyball VOLLEYBALL T- -$704.79 $24,167.80 Spirit Products Shirts 9/14/2016 1474 Joel Filas Student Council Costco Membership -$110.00 $24,057.80 Renewal 9/14/2016 1475 Aramark Cofee/Pop/Water Cofee/Water -$208.47 $23,849.33 Service 9/14/2016 1476 Coca Cola Cofee/Pop/Water coke /water for -$350.16 $23,499.17 machines 9/14/2016 DEP 1470 GLV Sports Booster volleyball tourney -$125.00 $23,374.17 Club fee reimbursement 9/15/2016 DEP 8th Grade Poe Trip 8th Grade Field Student Payments $3,180.00 $26,554.17 Trip 9/20/2016 DEP Intramural Registrations 2 transfers $340.00 $26,894.17 S Sports Booster Football $150.00 Club S Sports Booster Basketball $190.00 Club 9/20/2016 DEP Pop & Water & Cofee Cofee/Pop/Water Machine Deposits $110.00 $27,004.17 EJH Activity Fund: printed from EJH Activity Fund on 10/6/16 Page 1 9/22/2016 DEP PBIS Open Gym Box Tops Open Gym $275.04 $27,279.21 Fundraiser Deposits 9/22/2016 DEP Restaurant Wars Receipts Vocal Music Restaurant Wars $1,345.00 $28,624.21 Receipts 9/22/2016 DEP Restaurant Wars Receipts Vocal Music Restaurant Wars $1,203.90 $29,828.11 Pre-Sales 9/22/2016 DEP Volleyball Spiritwear Volleyball Volleyball Spirit $462.00 $30,290.11 Wear 9/22/2016 DEP Vocal Music Donation Vocal Music Donation $250.00 $30,540.11 9/22/2016 DEP Restaurant Wars Receipts Vocal Music Restaurant Wars $75.00 $30,615.11 Concessions 9/22/2016 DEP See's Candy Sales Vocal Music Candy slae receipts $60.55 $30,675.66 9/22/2016 DEP Listing Error Volleyball Volleyball Spirit $50.00 $30,725.66 Wear 9/22/2016 DEP Darien #61 3 transfers $2,447.83 $33,173.49 Reimbursements S Administrative Welcome Back $119.98 Picnic Supplies S Vocal Music Dry Cleaning $527.85 S Washington Trip D.C. Chaperones $1,800.00 9/22/2016 DEP Lions Club Vocal Music Donation $500.00 $33,673.49 9/27/2016 DEP Chorus Uniform fee Vocal Music Uniform Rental fees $1,549.36 $35,222.85 9/28/2016 1477 Michele Gambrel Vocal Music Restraunt Wars -$96.65 $35,126.20 Refreshments 9/28/2016 1478 DJL Entertainment Cheerleading Competition Music -$395.00 $34,731.20 9/28/2016 1479 Kevin Condon Student Council Studenet Council -$15.91 $34,715.29 Meeting Treats/Supplies
9/28/2016 1480 Burt Rot Vocal Music Yamaha T121 Piano -$1,250.00 $33,465.29 First Installment 9/30/2016 Deposit return Item Vocal Music CN Choir Uniform -$23.00 $33,442.29 9/30/2016 DEP Interest Earned Administrative September Interest $17.05 $33,459.34 earned
Total Account Inflows: $14,531.38
Total Account Outflows: -$9,610.00
Net Account Total: $4,921.38
EJH Activity Fund: printed from EJH Activity Fund on 10/6/16 Page 2 Transaction Detail For: Lace School Checking
Last Month, Any Type, Any Status
Scheduled Split Date Payee Category Tags Transfer Payment Reconcile Deposit Balance Memo/Notes 9/6/2016 Zazzo's General General -$153.69 R $20,685.48 Pizza for Pizza Fund Fund Curriculum Night 9/20/2016 First Choice General General -$104.85 R $20,580.63 First Choice Cofee Fund Fund Cofee Services Services 9/30/2016 General General General R $11.63 $20,592.26 Interest Fund Fund Fund
Total Account Inflows: $11.63
Total Account Outflows: -$258.54
Net Account Total: -$246.91
Lace School Checking: printed from Erin's Finances on 10/14/16 Page 1 Transaction Detail For: DeLay Activity Account
Last Month, Any Type, Any Status
Scheduled Split Reconcile Date Check # Payee Category Transfer Payment Deposit Balance Memo/Notes R 9/6/2016 7004 Lisa General General -$80.85 $1,461.51 Items for Institute Kompare Fund Fund Day/ofce Supplies R 9/16/2016 Garden General General -$50.00 $1,411.51 2nd grade field Patch Farms Fund Fund trip R 9/19/2016 7005 Lisa Hearts & Hearts & -$100.72 $1,310.79 gift cards/get well Kompare Flowers Flowers cards/staf awards/stamps R 9/19/2016 7006 School Kidz General General -$258.27 $1,052.52 Journals-1st Fund Fund R 9/19/2016 7007 Culligan Pop & Pop & -$67.00 $985.52 Invoice: Cofee Cofee 201408647824 9/19/2016 PRINT Great Lakes Pop & Pop & $0.00 $985.52 pop order Coca-Cola Cofee Cofee Distribution, LLC R 9/19/2016 Deposit General General $1,352.00 $2,337.52 1st grade Fund Fund journals/scholastic news R 9/19/2016 Deposit Maureen Maureen $70.00 $2,407.52 staf rafe Kelly Kelly donations Fund Fund R 9/19/2016 Deposit Hearts & Hearts & $617.00 $3,024.52 social committee Flowers Flowers dues R 9/19/2016 Deposit General General $147.51 $3,172.03 reimbursement Fund Fund from DO- shredding-student work samples R 9/30/2016 INTEREST General General $1.22 $3,173.25 INTEREST earned CREDIT Fund Fund [Check #0 Republic Checking] R 9/30/2016 Credit debit General General $0.10 $3,173.35 Comm Debit cash
cash back Fund Fund back
Page 1 DeLay Activity Account: printed from Lisa's Finances on 10/13/16 Total Account Inflows: $2,187.83
Total Account Outflows: -$556.84
Net Account Total: $1,630.99
Page 2 DeLay Activity Account: printed from Lisa's Finances on 10/13/16
DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2016-2017 OCTOBER 21, 2016 DISTRICT #61 MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT REPORT
MARK DELAY SCHOOL (Kdg.-1-2) Lisa Kompare, Principal LACE SCHOOL (3-4-5) Erin Dwyer, Principal EISENHOWER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL (6-7-8) Jacob Buck, Principal Joel Filas, Assistant Principal KINDERGARTEN Anabel Dominguez (Bilingual) THIRD Erin Kasanders 6th (6 sections) 7th (6 sections) 8th (7 sections) Kristie Lupella GRADE Bonnie Bucholz LANGUAGE ARTS/ Donna Pidde-Serpico Sera Bocian Melissa McGannon Julie Vallo Michelle Greco READING Sue Tullar Kristen Filip Nikki Alessi Susie Stachnik Mike Moyer Jen Taake Whitney Baker Jada Gilleylen Shannon Toland / Ashley Frye Kathryn Ballard MATH Jen McKnight Amy Steffgen Amy Steffgen FIRST Monica Molina (Bilingual) Jessica Johnson (Bilingual) Kevin Condon Kevin Condon Julia Polasek GRADE Rebecca Knapp FOURTH Marion Nyhoff Julia Polasek Julia Polasek (HS) Gail Stocchero GRADE Nicole deVerdier Amy Steffgen (DGS) Kerri Montague Janet Boslett Kevin Condon Michelle Bossy LeeAnne Lewis SCIENCE Roy Wolski Paula Perisin Joe Polasek Amy Whitt Caroline Kolodziej Jessica Hess Kelly Glennon (Amy Staubus, sub) SECOND Rhonda Esposito Joy O'Reilly (Transition) SOCIAL STUDIES Donna Pidde-Serpico Robert Cabrera Stu Stallings GRADE Melissa Winter FIFTH Bob Johnson Sue Tullar Brittany Polly GRADE Sally Burke (Julia Mendez, sub) Jen Taake Michelle Skweres Kathy Atwood Kim McShea Rebecca Berry STUDY SKILLS Magdalena Barajas (Bilingual) Janel Glines Kerry Senesac Haley Nelson RtI MATH/READING ART Liese Hearth ART Sally Misiora GUIDANCE COUNSELOR Sarah Willmert P.E. David Nash P.E. Cami Nicol ELL Anne Breck-Meyer / Fay Lolos VOCAL MUSIC Sarah Kenealy VOCAL MUSIC Andrea Behegan P.E./HEALTH Jennifer Crum / Phil Esposito BAND BAND Joey Bonanotte Heather Petersen (Paul Mutschler,sub) GIFTED (ENRICHMENT) Mary Andersen GIFTED (ENRICHMENT) Amy Mordaunt Zachary Holtzman LIBRARY Diane Nelson LIBRARY MUSIC Puja Ramaswamy TECH. EDUCATOR Jen Pena / Michele Goshko TECH. EDUCATOR Michele Goshko BAND Matthew Janus READING Kristin Shell /Cheryl Halla READING Jennifer Reyes TECHNOLOGY Renee Brennan (6) Michelle Sleboda Kim Schultz FAMILY/CONSUMER SCI. Diane Ferrando ELL/BILINGUAL Janice Brooks / Emily Heise (Gerry Vivas, sub) Ashley Koney ART Erica Hochleutner SOCIAL WORKER Stephanie Nash ELL/BILINGUAL Hollie Hickey / Ashley Grabowski SPANISH Veronica Baracaldo Veronica Baracaldo RESOURCE Linda Pritchard/Amanda Bowers TBD SOCIAL WORKER Kathy Spencer Ashley Daly/Delena Valadez SOCIAL WORKER Donna Murphy TECH. EDUCATOR Jen Pena Vanessa Hallums RESOURCE Kim Granback MULTINEEDS (LADSE) Tricia Bradley/TBA CROSS-CATEGORY Karen Pudil Ann Centers RESOURCE Keith Bartelmey / Deana Jubeh Julie Neary / Becky Collins Jorie Klip / Alyssia Evans SPEECH Lisa Massanisso (LADSE) Lauren Zembruski EXTENDED RESOURCE Debbie Kostal EMPLOY MULTI-NEEDS (LADSE) Amy Danaher Jimmy Ramsden ECE Brigid Riley CROSS-CATEGORY Terry Whaley SPEECH Bob Heelan (LADSE) PRE-KDG. BLENDED Kara Macropulos SPEECH Cheryl Buhrke (LADSE) SOC. BEHAV. LEARNING Michelle Pacini ECE BILINGUAL Mandy Olson MULTI-NEEDS (LADSE) Sandra Wheeler READING Julie Kowalski-Schmidt RESIGNATIONS/TERMINATIONS ECE/BLENDED Jetty Sizemore / Eva Rzeszutko/ INT. RESOURCE MULTINEEDS (LADSE) Meagan Meneou / Tricia Brawley Lisa Martinelli /Julie Hawks / RESOURCE Anne Walsh (8) Renata Cunningham / Sarah Mijares (7) LEAVES OF ABSENCE Joelle Pigors (1/2) ELL TBA Kris Karsa (6) Sally Burke, request for 2-week leave ECE BILINGUAL Diana Lopez RESOURCE/SBL Jennifer Blaa Jennifer Reyes, request for 12-week leave KDG. Lourdes Rosete / Carlie Serritella Jean Schroeder Puja Ramaswamy, request for 12-week leave PMN (LADSE) LADSE READING Cynthia Andino PRIM. EXT. RESOURCE Debbie Errandi EXT. RESOURCE Anna Pescatore (W)) EXT. RESOURCE Kanita Kolodziej RETIREMENT PRIM. RESOURCE Deb Uhlar (K) Susan Anderson (W) Mary Lang, Secretary to the Superintendent Anna Hobbs (1) Joelle Pigors (1/2) (K) ELL ELL/BILINGUAL Marcela Buhrke INT. MN. (LADSE) LADSE STUDY HALL ASSISTANT COMPUTER Susan Bolton COMPUTER Julie Nally (2-1/2 days) COMPUTER Julie Nally (2-1/2 days) LIBRARY LIBRARY Joanna Petersen LIBRARY Valerie Slover DARIEN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2016-2017 OCTOBER 21, 2016 DISTRICT #61 MONTHLY EMPLOYMENT REPORT
EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL MARK DELAY LACE EISENHOWER SECRETARIES Joelle Siki /Jeaneth Mazzocco Patty Lauzon SECRETARIES LuAnn Keslinke HEALTH ASSISTANTS (AIDES) Brooke Helms Ginger Ladd Sue Horton LUNCH PROGRAM (P-T) Antoinette Saunders (P-T) (M-F) Carol Berning (P-T) (M-F) HEALTH ASSISTANT (AIDE) Bonnie Rink (P-T) Rosalinda Szutowicz (P-T) (M-F) Jean McCaffrey-Brooks LUNCH Lillie M. Lillie, Director TBD (P-T) Breakfast program Roger Meyer, Food Service Supervisor CUSTODIANS Dave Muenzing (8) José Zambrano (8) Judy Piscitiello Chidel Hayden (8) Marcelo Dominguez (8) Cathy Needham Larry Veronica (8) Jesus Chagoya (8) June Bieda Jaleel White (6) Luis Topete (8) Susan Winters Ciro DeChiara (3) LUNCH SUBSTITUTES Frances Ryan, (sub)
ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL OFFICE BUSINESS OFFICE TRANSPORTATION/MAINTENANCE Bob Carlo, Superintendent Mary Lang Charlene Cotuno Kurt Stadtler Megan Stoltz,Chief School Business Official Aja Johnson Carol Schultz, Special Education Suzanne Bialas CUSTODIANS Ray Butscher (8) BUS DRIVERS (9 ROUTES) Diane Whitesides (8) LADSE PERSONNEL Roberta Hall Cesar Mejia (8) DISTRICT Karen Ochoa, Psychologist (EJH/Lace) Dave Muenzing Angel Melesio (8) Keith Roberts (Network Coordinator) Lynn Kerby, Psychologist (MD) Shelley Yang Arturo Garay (6) Teresa Shiley, Nurse Speech Matt Mostowik RETIRING Jennifer Stansbury, SST Coordinator (Lace) Cheryl Buhrke (Lace) Thomas Bowler Lindsay Schwarz, Cross-Cat (MD)(Priv. Sch.) Nicole Kushta-Pelc Donna Pidde-Serpico (end of 2016-17 school yr.) DAY CARE/K.I.D.S. CLUB Mary Kaminski, Resource (Lace) Christopher Gobber Kim Granback (end of 2016-17 school yr.) Mary Andersen, Director Shari Holt, Multineeds (MD/EJH) Danilo Reyes Marion Nyhoff (end of 2016-17 school yr.) (D) (Site Coord. AM) Lisa Martinelli Lisa Massanisso (MD) Tyesha Bell Janet Boslett (end of 2016-17 school yr.) (D) Site Coordinator (PM) Eva Rzeszutko Katie Smart (EJH) Janice Brooks (end of 2016-17 school yr.) (D) (AM) Jetty Sizemore Kelly Smith-Novak (MD) Kurt Stadtler (sub) Gail Stocchero (end of 2017-18 school yr.) (D) (AM/PM) Debbie Errandi Kelly Stover-Krupske, ECSE (MD) Mary Lang (effective January 14, 2017) (D) (PM) Deb Uhlar Robert Heelan, ER (MD/EJH) MESSENGER (L) (Site Coord. AM/PM) Anna Pescatore Andrea Trowbridge, EC (MD) Kenneth Brooks (L) (AM) Anna Pescatore Physical Therapists (L)(AM) Carrie Serritella (M-W-F) Heidi Athas, Inclusion (MD/Lace) (L) Mary Andersen (Prog. Dir.) Terry Seifert ECSE (MD) (L) (PM) Anna Pescatore Valerie Kramer (ECE) (L) (PM) Robbi Romanoff Hermie Morales, Multineeds (MD) LEAVES OF ABSENCE (L) (PM) Jetty Sizemore Wendy Brunswick, Multineeds - EJH/Lace) Kelly Glennon (L) (PM) Jennie Van Norman (M-F) Occupational Therapists Joelle Siki Kim Hagar, ECE & Blended (MD) Emily Heise ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS/TRAINEES Michelle Mannix-Richards, Blend. & Biling. (MD) Heather Petersen Trainees Gail Trainor, Inclusion (District) Sally Burke Mary Andersen - DeLay Jen Manescalshi - EJH Gina Ortiz-Anderson, Multineeds (Lace/MD) Jennifer Reyes Joey Bonanotte - Lace Jen Crum - EJH Laurie Gacki, Multineeds (EJH) Puja Ramaswamy Monique Attal, Multineeds (EJH) Assistants ECE Program Supports EXTENDED ILLNESS Michelle Sleboda - DeLay Jennifer Stansbury - District Kelly Rathbun-Hunt, Program Coord. Jada Gilleylen - Lace Vanessa Hallums - DeLay Dena Walter, Psych/Social Worker Erin Kasanders - Lace Brigid Riley - DeLay Adaptive P.E. Teacher Trish McDonough, All Multi-Needs (District) SUMMER To: District Office From: Sally Burke
!!!!!!!! September 29, 2016
! . I will be out of school for about 2 weeks . My expected return date will be October 26, .
!!!!!!! Thank you, !!!!!!! Sally Burke
This was posted on the Abilene, Kansas High School Dialogue Buzz website:
Let’s have a little competition at school and get ready for the future. I will [as a student] use a laptop and you will use paper and pencil. Are you ready…? ■ I will access up-to-date information - you have a textbook that is 5 years old. ■ I will immediately know when I misspell a word – you have to wait until it’s graded. ■ I will learn how to care for technology by using it – you will read about it. ■ I will see math problems in 3D – you will do the odd problems. ■ I will create artwork and poetry and share it with the world – you will share yours with the class. ■ I will have 24/7 access – you have the entire class period. ■ I will access the most dynamic information – yours will be printed and photocopied. ■ I will communicate with leaders and experts using email – you will wait for Friday’s speaker. ■ I will select my learning style – you will use the teacher’s favorite learning style. ■ I will collaborate with my peers from around the world – you will collaborate with peers in your classroom. ■ I will take my learning as far as I want – you must wait for the rest of the class. ■ The cost of a laptop per year? - $250 ■ The cost of teacher and student training? – Expensive ■ The cost of well educated US citizens and workforce? - Priceless Technologist, Doug Johnson, took this a step further in his book The Classroom Teacher's Technology Survival Guide, and then his blog http://doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2006/1/19/i-will-as-a-teacher.html
Could a teacher offer the same challenge? Let’s have a little competition at school and get ready for the future. I will use a laptop and you will use paper and pencil. Are you ready…? ■ I can provide up-to-date information to my students - you have a textbook that is 5 years old. ■ I can find and change all my instructional materials, worksheets, study guides, tests, every year - you better hope the master is good enough for one more photocopy. ■ I will model 21st century skills - technology, information-problem solving and life-long learning - you will lecture about them. ■ I will provide my visual learners an accessible means of grasping concepts through multimedia resources - you can use simpler words.. ■ I give my students a world-wide audience for their creative work – you will share your students' work with the class. ■ I will give my students access to study materials and resources for my class 24/7 - you hope they remember to bring home the textbook. ■ I will communicate with my students and parents electronically - you can hope to catch them after class or at home in the evenings. ■ I will give parents real-time access to how their children are performing in my class - you send our report cards and have two parent-teacher conferences a year. ■ I will use the information gathered from computer enabled value-added testing to know exactly what my individual students' strengths and weakness are - you will use whole group instruction. ■ I will communicate with educational leaders and experts using email – you will try to remember the advice of the instructor in your college methods class from 1980. ■ I will honor the variety of reading abilities of my students by providing materials on a topic at a variety of reading levels - you will use the basal reader. ■ I will collaborate with my peers from around the world – you will stay behind your classroom door. ■ I will allow my students to take their learning as far as they want – you must keep everyone at the same place at the same time. ■ The cost of a laptop per year? - $250 ■ The cost of teacher training? – Expensive, but no more so than other staff development activities ■ The cost of effective schools? - Priceless
1soatr94.p 12-4 Darien School District 61 10/17/16 Page:1 05.16.06.00.00 Enrollment as of: 10/17/2016 Run On - 10/17/2016 11:03 AM
School Enrollment with Special Education Breakdown for SCHOOL 100 Mark Delay School
American Ind Asian Black Nat Hawaiian White Hisp/Lat Eth Multi-Race Total Total Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 01 0 0 5 6 6 5 0 0 41 33 13 23 2 5 67 72 139 02 0 0 5 5 3 5 0 1 31 38 22 10 6 3 67 62 129 E4 0 0 3 2 2 3 0 0 8 4 5 3 0 0 18 12 30 KG 0 0 5 5 6 8 0 0 49 33 14 15 3 2 77 63 140 TOTAL 0 0 18 18 17 21 0 1 129 108 54 51 11 10 229 209 438
Total Special Education Students: 01 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 4 5 0 0 0 13 6 19 02 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 15 0 1 1 0 0 18 1 19 E4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 0 0 10 6 16 KG 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 4 2 2 1 0 0 11 6 17 TOTAL 0 0 3 3 8 2 0 1 31 11 10 2 0 0 52 19 71
Eval Code Description Code Male Female Total CSE 48 17 65 1soatr94.p 12-4 Darien School District 61 10/17/16 Page:2 05.16.06.00.00 Enrollment as of: 10/17/2016 Run On - 10/17/2016 11:03 AM
School Enrollment with Special Education Breakdown for SCHOOL 200 Lace School
American Ind Asian Black Nat Hawaiian White Hisp/Lat Eth Multi-Race Total Total Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 03 0 0 6 5 3 11 0 0 40 43 14 10 2 0 65 69 134 04 0 0 4 2 9 4 0 0 34 46 17 13 1 4 65 69 134 05 1 0 3 8 6 12 0 0 36 38 13 11 3 3 62 72 134 TOTAL 1 0 13 15 18 27 0 0 110 127 44 34 6 7 192 210 402
Total Special Education Students: 03 0 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 5 4 4 1 0 0 15 7 22 04 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 5 2 2 1 0 9 9 18 05 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 0 0 7 5 12 TOTAL 0 0 2 0 7 4 0 0 14 13 7 4 1 0 31 21 52
Eval Code Description Code Male Female Total CSE 17 13 30 1soatr94.p 12-4 Darien School District 61 10/17/16 Page:3 05.16.06.00.00 Enrollment as of: 10/17/2016 Run On - 10/17/2016 11:03 AM
School Enrollment with Special Education Breakdown for SCHOOL 300 Eisenhower Jr. High School
American Ind Asian Black Nat Hawaiian White Hisp/Lat Eth Multi-Race Total Total Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 04 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 06 0 0 2 8 10 11 0 1 39 46 11 15 1 1 63 82 145 07 0 0 6 8 9 13 0 0 43 48 6 8 0 1 64 78 142 08 0 1 7 10 12 8 0 0 47 47 10 11 0 1 76 78 154 TOTAL 0 1 16 26 31 32 0 1 129 141 27 34 1 3 204 238 442
Total Special Education Students: 06 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 18 3 2 4 0 0 23 9 32 07 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 6 5 11 08 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 0 9 2 1 1 0 0 14 6 20 TOTAL 0 0 4 0 3 6 0 0 29 9 7 5 0 0 43 20 63
Eval Code Description Code Male Female Total CSE 14 6 20 1soatr94.p 12-4 Darien School District 61 10/17/16 Page:4 05.16.06.00.00 Enrollment as of: 10/17/2016 Run On - 10/17/2016 11:03 AM
Totals for All Schools
American Ind Asian Black Nat Hawaiian White Hisp/Lat Eth Multi-Race Total Total Grade Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 01 0 0 5 6 6 5 0 0 41 33 13 23 2 5 67 72 139 02 0 0 5 5 3 5 0 1 31 38 22 10 6 3 67 62 129 03 0 0 6 5 3 11 0 0 40 43 14 10 2 0 65 69 134 04 0 0 5 2 9 4 0 0 34 46 17 13 1 4 66 69 135 05 1 0 3 8 6 12 0 0 36 38 13 11 3 3 62 72 134 06 0 0 2 8 10 11 0 1 39 46 11 15 1 1 63 82 145 07 0 0 6 8 9 13 0 0 43 48 6 8 0 1 64 78 142 08 0 1 7 10 12 8 0 0 47 47 10 11 0 1 76 78 154 E4 0 0 3 2 2 3 0 0 8 4 5 3 0 0 18 12 30 KG 0 0 5 5 6 8 0 0 49 33 14 15 3 2 77 63 140 TOTAL 1 1 47 59 66 80 0 2 368 376 125 119 18 20 625 657 1282
Total Special Education Students: 01 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 4 5 0 0 0 13 6 19 02 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 15 0 1 1 0 0 18 1 19 03 0 0 1 0 5 2 0 0 5 4 4 1 0 0 15 7 22 04 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 5 5 2 2 1 0 9 9 18 05 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 0 0 7 5 12 06 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 18 3 2 4 0 0 23 9 32 07 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 6 5 11 08 0 0 2 0 2 3 0 0 9 2 1 1 0 0 14 6 20 E4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 5 2 0 0 0 10 6 16 KG 0 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 4 2 2 1 0 0 11 6 17 TOTAL 0 0 9 3 18 12 0 1 74 33 24 11 1 0 126 60 186
Eval Code Description Code Male Female Total CSE 79 36 115
************************ End of report ************************ District Committee Members (PAID FOR BY THE DISTRICT)
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support-DeLay (co-chairs: Kristin Shell and Vanessa Hallums) ● Classroom Teachers: Mandy Olson, Susie Stachnik, Kerri Montague, Melissa Winter, Kerry Senesac ● ELL: Janice Brooks ● Resource: Vanessa Hallums, Mandy Bowers, Linda Pritchard, Ashley Daly, Delena Valadez ● Reading: Kristin Shell, Cheryl Halla, Michelle Sleboda ● Social Work: Stephanie Nash ● Speech--Lisa Massanisso, Lindsay Schwarz ● LADSE: Lynn Kerby ● Lisa Kompare
RTI-Lace ( occurs during Day)/PBIS (open to all Staff) ● Classroom Teachers: ● Specials: ● ELL: ● Resource: ● Reading: ● Social Work: ● Speech: ● LADSE: ● Erin Dwyer
RTI/PBIS-EJH ● Classroom Teachers: Jen McKnight ● Specials: Diane Ferrando ● ELL: ● Resource: Deana Jubeh ● Reading: Sue Tullar ● Social Work: Kathy Spencer ● Guidance Counselor: Sarah Willmert ● Speech: ● LADSE: Karen Ochoa ● Jacob Buck
October 19, 2016 District Committee Members (PAID FOR BY THE DISTRICT)
Math: C hairperson: Amy Steffgen ● Classroom Teachers--Julie Vallo,Ashley Daly, Kerri Montague, Rhonda Esposito, Erin Kasanders, Marion Nyhoff, Kathy Atwood, Jen Manescalchi, Haley Nelson, Kevin Condon, Julia Polasek ● Enrichment - Mary Andersen, Amy Mordaunt ● Administrator--Lisa Kompare, Erin Dwyer, Jacob Buck, Joel Filas
English Language Arts: C hairperson: Kristin Shell ● Reading Team--Michelle Sleboda, Cheryl Halla, Jennifer Reyes, Kim Schultz, Ashley Koney, Julie Kowalski-Schmidt ● Mary Andersen ● Diane Nelson ● Classroom Teachers--Kristie Lupella, Michelle Bossy, Kim McShea, Jada Gilleylen, Janet Boslett, Janel Glines, Donna Pidde-Serpico, Sera Bocian, Jorie Klip/Melissa McGannon ● Administrator--Lisa Kompare, Erin Dwyer, Jacob Buck
District Language Arts-Meets during the school day: C hairperson: Kristin Shell ● Reading Team: Michelle Sleboda, Cheryl Halla, Mary Andersen, Jen Reyes, Kim Schultz, Ashley Koney, Julie Kowalski-Schmidt ● Psych-Lynn Kerby, Karen Ochoa
English Language Learners: C hairperson: Jessica Johnson ● Classroom Teachers: Anabel Dominguez, Monica Molina, Maggie Barajas, Mandy Olson, Brigid Riley, Kara Macropulos ● ESL Teachers: Janice Brooks, Gerry Vivas, Ashley Grabowski, Anne Breck-Meyer, Hollie Hickey ● Specials-Diane Nelson ● Administrator--Joel Filas
Science: C hairperson: Joe Polasek ● Classroom Teachers: Ashley Frye, Becky Knapp, Brittany Polly,Mike Moyer, Caroline Matkowski, Bob Johnson, Haley Nelson ● Specials-Diane Nelson, Mary Andersen
October 19, 2016 District Committee Members (PAID FOR BY THE DISTRICT)
Social Studies: C hairperson: TBD ● Classroom Teachers: Shannon Toland, Gail Stocchero, Melissa Winter, Katie Ballard, Nicole deVerdier, Sally Sinow, Kevin Condon, Rob Cabrera, Stuart Stallings ● Administrators
Staff Development: C hairperson: Mary Andersen ● Classroom Teachers: Michelle Skweres, Brigid Riley, Michelle Greco, Janel Luna, Roy Wolski, Donna Pidde-Serpico, Rob Cabrera ● Specials: Liese Hearth, Mary Andersen, Joey Bonanotte, Hollie Hickey, Heather Petersen, Puja Ramaswamy, ● Administrator--Lisa Kompare, Erin Dwyer, Jacob Buck
Title I Paid through Grant: C hairperson: Kristin Shell
Report Card-Inactive: C hairperson: TBD ● Classroom Teachers: Shannon Toland, Jess Hess, Michelle Skweres, Michelle Greco, Caroline Kolodziej ● Mary Andersen ● Administrator--Lisa Kompare, Erin Dwyer
October 19, 2016 Upcoming Illinois School Funding Reform Commission meetings
Note that when the Commission meets in the morning, the stakeholders will meet the previous day from 4-5pm.
o Oct. 4, 5 § Commission meeting on Oct. 5: 9am-noon § Stakeholder meeting/call on Oct. 4: 4-5pm
o Oct. 19 § Commission meeting: 12-3pm § Stakeholder meeting/call: 10-11am
o Nov. 2 § Commission meeting: 12-3pm § Stakeholder meeting/call: 10-11am
o Nov. 17 § Commission meeting: 2-5pm § Stakeholder meeting/call: 12-1pm
o Dec. 1 § Commission meeting: 2-5pm § Stakeholder meeting/call: 12-1pm
o Dec. 14 § Commission meeting: 12-3pm § Stakeholder meeting/call: 10-11am
K-12 Funding Formula: Research updates
April 25, 2016 FY13 Revenue Distribution-Billions State Total Local % State % Fed. % IL 26.9 17.6 65.3 7.0 26.1 2.3 8.6 CA 66.0 22.8 34.5 35.9 54.3 7.4 11.2 FL 24.5 12.0 48.8 9.5 38.6 3.1 12.6 IN 11.9 4.2 35.3 6.7 56.0 1.0 8.7 IA 6.0 2.4 40.4 3.1 51.7 0.5 7.8 KY 7.1 2.4 33.2 3.9 54.4 0.9 12.3 MA 16.4 9.0 54.9 6.5 39.4 0.9 6.0 MI 18.6 5.9 31.5 11.0 58.7 1.8 9.8 MN 11.2 3.3 29.2 7.2 64.4 0.7 6.3 MO 10.3 6.0 58.2 3.4 32.8 0.9 9.0 NJ 27.1 14.8 54.8 11.1 40.8 1.2 4.4 NY 59.0 32.1 54.4 23.7 40.1 3.2 5.5 OH 22.6 10.8 48.0 9.8 43.5 1.9 8.6 TX 50.1 24.0 48.0 20.1 40.2 5.9 11.7 WI 10.8 5.1 47.1 4.9 45.0 0.9 7.9 Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of funds and state: 2011-12
29 32 36 45 47 46 47 60
Local Per Pupil Revenue - percent of total Percent 64 57 55 45 44 44 44 State Per Pupil Revenue - 32 percent of total
Federal Per Pupil Revenue - 10 7 11 10 9 10 9 8 percent of total
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Educa on, Na onal Center for Educa on Sta s cs, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Na onal Public Educa on Financial Survey," 2011-12. (This table was prepared July 2014.) Almost all states use multiple variables to calculate education funding – some through truly complex formulas Frequent formula variables: • Accurate student count • Weight for low-income students • Weight for students with a disability • Weight for English language learners • Per student base cost • District poverty factor • District cost of living factor • District tax effort factor • Small district factor • Adequacy target calculated
Iowa
(Previous FY Cost-Per-Pupil) X (Legislatively Approved Growth Rate for Current FY)= (Per-Pupil Supplemental Aid for Current FY)
(Previous FY Cost-Per-Pupil) + (Per-Pupil Supplemental Aid for Current FY)= Current FY Cost-Per-Pupil • Growth Rate= Set by the legislature two years prior
District costs= (Costs-per-pupil for Base Year) X (Supplemental State Aid for Budget Year)
Missouri
1. (Weighted ADA) X (State Adequacy Target) X (Dollar Value Modifier)= Total Education Dollars Required
2. (Total Education Dollars Required) - (Local Effort)= State Funding
Weighted ADA: • (term hours attended/term hours possible) + (summer hours attended/1004)=ADA • “Weights” applicable for free/reduced lunch, IEPs, and ELL enrollments (at rates of 0.25, 0.75, and 0.60) Missouri-Continued
Adequacy Target: • The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education analyzes the per-pupil spending of school districts performing “well”, not the best or worst in the state. • Current target=$6,808
Dollar Value Modifier: • Local wage ratio is divided by median state wage ratio • 1 + 0.15(regional wage ratio – 1)= DVM
Local Effort: • (EAV) X (PT rate from previous FY) – (assessor fees) Kentucky
The base funding for each district is adjusted by the following factors: • Free lunch students: (Prior year average) X (0.15 of base funding) • Series of “weights” for exceptional students (low incident disabilities, moderate incident disabilities, high incident disabilities, ELL) • Transportation costs • Home/Hospital students: (ADA) X (Base funding) – (Capital Outlay Allotment)
Other student expenditures include special education, ELL, and gifted & talented
Florida
1. (FTE Students) X (Program Cost Factors)= Weighted FTE Students
2. (Weighted FTE Students) X (Base Student Allocation) X (District Cost Differential)= Base Funding
3. (Base Funding) + (Categorical Grants)= Gross State and Local Formula Dollars
4. (Gross State and Local Formula Dollars) – (Required Local Effort)= Gross State Formula Dollars
Florida-Continued 5. (Gross State Formula Dollars) + (Adjustments)=Net State Formula Allocation
6. (Net State Formula Allocation) + (Categorical Program Funds)= Total State Funding
Categorical Grants: DJJ Supplement, Declining Enrollment Supplement, Sparsity Supplement, State-Funded Discretionary Contribution, 0.748 Mills Discretionary Compression, Safe Schools, Reading Program, Supplement Academic Instruction, ESE Guaranteed Allocation, Instructional Materials, Teachers Classroom Supply Assistance, Student Transportation, Virtual Education Contribution, Digital Classroom Allocation, Federally Connected Student Supplement
Texas
An initial “adjustment allotment” is calculated to determine state/local revenue the district is entitled to receive • (Basic Allotment) X (Cost of Education Index) • Calculations adjusted based on district’s size
The “adjusted allotment” is then multiplied by the number of students in a particular group, multiplied by the respective group’s “weight”, add-on, or allotment. The totals are then summed.
Local Share= (Compressed Maintenance & Operations Rate) X (Assigned Taxable Rate) / 100 State Share= Total Tier 1 Costs – Local Share
Texas-Tier 2
Massachusetts Foundation Budget Per-Pupil= (Cost Rates Sum) / (Total Student Enrollment)
11 Cost Rates Catregories: Administration, Instructional Leadership, Classroom Specialist Teacher, Other Teaching Services, Professional Development, Instructional Equipment & Technology, Guidance & Psychological, Pupil Services, Operations & Maintenance, Employee Benefits & Fixed Charges, Special Education Tuition • A “wage adjustment factor” percentage is added
14 Enrollment Categories: Pre-School, K ½ Day, K Full-day, Elementary, Middle, High, ELL PK, ELL K ½, ELL KF-12, Vocational, Special Ed in District, Special Ed out of district, Low-income Elementary, Other
New Jersey
Adequacy Budget={(Base Cost) + (AR Cost) + (LEP Cost) + (Comb. Cost) + (Special Ed. Census)} X GCA • AR= At-risk • LEP= Limited English Proficient • Comb.= LEP with free/reduced lunch • Special Ed. Census= Census based costs wealth-equalized
1. Base Cost= 9649 X {Elem Enr + (MS Enr X 1.04) + (HS Enr X 1.17)} 2. AR Cost= “ “ “ X (AR weight) 3. LEP Cost= “ “ “ X 0.5 4. Com. Cost= “ “ “ X (AR “weight” + 0.125)
New Jersey-Continued
5. Special Ed. Census: • Special Ed.: (Total Enr. X 0.1469 X 10898 X 0.66) • Speech: (Total Enr. X 0.01897 X 1082)
Categorical Grants: Special Education, Security, Transportation, Preschool, Debt Service & Benefits
Local Fair Share= (Equalized Valuation X Property Value Rate Percentage X 0.50) x (Aggregate Income X Income Rate X 0.50)
State Aid= (Adequacy Budget – Local Fair Share) + (Categorical Grants)
New York
1. Adjusted Foundation Amount: • (Foundation Amount) X (CPI change) X (phase-in Foundation %) X (regional Cost Index) X (Pupil Need Index) 2. Expected Minimum Local Contribution Per-Pupil: • (Selected Actual Value/ Total Wealth Foundation Pupil Units) X (Local Tax Factor) X (Income Wealth Index) 3. Selected Total Aidable Foundation Pupil Units: • (Previous FY Average Daily Membership X Base Year Enrollment Index) + (Previous FY Summer ADM X 0.12) + Previous FY Weighted Foundation Pupils with Disabilities 4. Foundation Aid Payable • (Foundation Aid Base) + {(Phase-in Foundation Increase Factor) X (Total Foundation Aid – Foundation Aid Base)}
California Base Grants: • $7,820 K-3 • $7,189 4-6 • $7,403 7-8 • $8,801 9-12 • Includes cost-of-living adjustments
Supplemental Grants: Add 20% of per-student base grant for every ELL, foster child, homeless youth, and low-income student • $1,564 K-3 • $1,438 4-6 • $1,481 7-8 • $1,760 9-12
California-Continued
• Students receiving supplemental grants will only be counted for one category: “unduplicated count”
Concentration Grant: • If high needs students make up 55% of district population: (50% base grant) + (Supplemental Grant) per high needs student • If high needs students make up 100% of district pop: (50% base grant) + (Supplemental Grant=42% base grant) per high needs student
Extra allocations for K-3, 9-12, and supplementals are tied to state education goals (e.g. increase K-3 reading scores) Minnesota
• (Average Daily Membership) X (Pupil “Weight”)=Resident Weighted ADM Pupil Units • Pre-K: 1.250 • K-Disabled: 1.000 • Regular K: 0.612 • 1-3: 1.115 • 4-6: 1.060 • 7-12: 1.300
• Adjusted Marginal Cost Pupil Units= Greater of Current Year Adjusted Pupil Units or (0.77 X Current Year Adjusted Pupil Units + 0.23 X Prior Year Adjusted Pupil Units)
Ohio
• Student Average Daily Memberships data is collected from multiple categories, including a base, special education, CTE, ELL, STEM participants, online students, etc.
• 3-year averages of federal adjusted gross income, total real valuation, and agricultural real valuation are adjusted to determine local and state costs
• The current foundation level is $5,900, and will increase to $6,000 in FY17
Ohio-Continued
(Previous FY Cost-Per-Pupil) X (Legislatively Approved Growth Rate for Current FY)= (Per-Pupil Supplemental Aid for Current FY)
(Previous FY Cost-Per-Pupil) + (Per-Pupil Supplemental Aid for Current FY)= Current FY Cost-Per-Pupil
• Growth Rate= Set by the legislature two years prior
Indiana
• Funding is based on foundation level and categorical grants • Current foundation level= $4,583
• The formula looks at prior year funding levels to make adjustments • If per-pupil amounts decreased from base year, adjustments made automatically • If per-pupil amounts increased from base year, adjustments are phased-in to reach new target
• Categorical Grants: Complexity Grant, Full-Day K Grant, Honors Grant, CTE Grant, Special Education Grant
Michigan
Three foundation levels; Minimum, Basic and State
In order to improve equity, a “2x Formula” was created to help “minimum” districts
State Portion= (Membership Pupils X foundation level under maximum of $8,019) – Assumed local non-homestead property tax revenues
Wisconsin
• Four district classifications: Common, Union High, Unified, First Class City
• Equalization Formula based on five factors: • Pupil Membership: School Year ADM and Summer • Shared Costs: deducting certain receipts from gross operating costs and debt services • Equalized Property Valuation: District EAV • Guaranteed Valuations: State supported PT bases per- pupil • Total Funding Available for Distribution: General State Aid appropriation for potential annual equalization adjustment
Wisconsin-Continued
Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card Fifth Edition (March 2016) By: Bruce Baker, Danielle Farrie, Theresa Luhm and David G. Sciarra1 The National Report Card (NRC) evaluates and compares the Major Findings extent to which state finance systems ensure equality of educational opportunity for all children, regardless of School funding levels continue to be background, family income, place of residence, or school characterized by wide disparities location. It is designed to provide policymakers, educators, among states, ranging from a high of business leaders, parents, and the public at large with $17,331 per pupil in Alaska to a low of $5,746 in Idaho. information to better understand the fairness of existing state school finance systems and how resources are allocated so Many of the lowest funded states, such as Arizona, California, Idaho, problems can be identified and solutions developed. Nevada, North Carolina and Texas, allocate a very low percentage of their states’ economic capacity to fund public education. Equal educational opportunity means Fourteen states, including Nevada, that all children and all schools have North Dakota and Illinois, are access to the resources and services regressive, providing less funding to needed to provide them with the school districts with higher opportunity to learn. concentrations of low income students. Only a handful of states Delaware, The NRC is unique among comparative school funding reports Massachusetts, Minnesota, New because it goes beyond simple per pupil calculations. To Jersey and Ohio have generally capture the complex differences among states, the NRC high funding levels and also provide constructs four interrelated fairness measures – Funding Level, significantly more funding to districts where student poverty Funding Distribution, Effort and Coverage — that allow for is highest. comparisons that control for regional differences. Low rankings on school funding The data for this fifth abridged edition of the NRC, published fairness correlate to poor state annually since 2008, comes from the 2013 U.S. Census Bureau performance on key resource indicators, Elementary Secondary Education Finance Survey. This is the including less access to early most recent data available. childhood education, non competitive wages for teachers, and higher teacher to pupil ratios. www.schoolfundingfairness.org 1 | Page
The Fairness Measures Funding Level – This measures the overall level of The NRC is built on the following core state and local revenue provided to school districts, fairness principles: and compares each state’s average per pupil revenue with that of other states. To recognize the 1) Varying levels of funding are variety of interstate differences, each state’s required to provide equal educational revenue level is adjusted to reflect differences in opportunities to children with regional wages, poverty, economies of scale, and different needs. population density.
2) The costs of education vary based Funding Distribution – This measures the on geographic location, regional distribution of funding across local districts within a differences in teacher salaries, school state, relative to student poverty. The measure district size, population density, and shows whether a state provides more or less various student characteristics. funding to schools based on their poverty concentration, using simulations ranging from 0% to 3) State finance systems should 30% child poverty. provide more funding to districts serving larger shares of students in Effort – This measures differences in state spending poverty. for education relative to state fiscal capacity. “Effort” is defined as the ratio of state spending to 4) The overall funding level in states is gross state product (GSP).2 also a significant element in fair school funding. Without a sufficient Coverage – This measures the proportion of school base, even a progressively funded aged children attending the state’s public schools, as system will be unable to provide compared with those not attending the state’s equitable educational opportunities. public schools (primarily parochial and private 5) The sufficiency of the overall level schools, but also home schooled). The share of the of school funding in any state can be state’s students in public schools and the median assessed based on comparisons to household income of those students is an important other states with similar conditions indicator of the distribution of funding relative to and similar characteristics. student poverty (especially where more affluent households simply opt out of public schooling), and the overall effort to provide fair school funding.
For information on data sources and a more detailed methodology, see Appendix A. Detailed, longitudinal data tables for all indicators can be found in Appendix B.
The four fairness measures are comparative in nature, demonstrating how an individual state compares to other states in the nation. States are not evaluated using specific thresholds of education cost and school funding that might be “adequate” or “equitable” if applied nationally or regionally. This type of
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 2 | Page
evaluation would require positing hard definitions of education cost and student need based on the complex conditions in each state. Such an exercise is beyond the scope of this report.3
States are evaluated by two methods – a grading curve and rank. Funding Distribution and Effort, the two measures over which states have direct control, are given letter grades that are based on the typical grading “curve” and range from “A” to “F.”4 Funding Level and Coverage are ranked because these measures are influenced not only by state policy, but also by other historical and contextual factors.
When analyzing the evaluations of states in the next sections, it is important to take into consideration two points. First, because the evaluations are comparative and not benchmarked to a defined outcome, high grades or rankings are not indicative of having met some obligation or having outperformed expectations. They simply demonstrate that some states are doing better than others; it does not mean there is no room for improvement. Second, the fairness measures are interrelated and complex. It is important to consider the interplay among measures, understand how they interact, and appreciate the complex moving parts. The goal of this report is to use approachable data to encourage a more sophisticated and nuanced discussion of fair school funding.
Fairness Measure #1: Funding Level While some analyses rely on straight per pupil funding calculations to compare spending by state, such a simple Without a nationwide commitment to analysis disregards the complex differences among states the principles of fair school funding and districts that affect education costs. In order to put and the implementation of progressive states on a more equal footing, we construct a model of finance systems, education policies school funding that predicts average funding levels while that seek to improve overall controlling for the following: student poverty, regional achievement, while also reducing gaps wage variation, and school district size and density. By between the lowest and highest removing the variability in funding associated with these performing students, will ultimately factors, we have a better sense of how states compare. The fail. funding levels presented are those predicted by the model at a 20% poverty rate, close to the national average.
Similar to previous years, funding levels continue to be characterized by wide disparities among states. In 2013, funding levels ranged from a high of $17,331 in Alaska, to a low of $5,746 in Idaho (See Figure 1). This means that, on average, students in Idaho had access to a mere one third of the funding available to students with similar needs and circumstances in Alaska. These disparities suggest wide variation in the degree to which states are providing the resources required to deliver equitable opportunities for all students.
Relative funding rankings have remained largely consistent over time. Despite recent fluctuations in the economy and attendant variations in spending, with only a few exceptions the lowest ranking states tend to remain in the bottom, and high spending states tend to remain at the top.
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 3 | Page
Figure 1. Predicted Funding Level, 2013
Alaska $17,331 (1) New York $16,726 (2) New Jersey $15,394 (3) Connecticut $14,886 (4) Wyoming $14,355 (5) Massachusetts $13,508 (6) Delaware $13,034 (7) Vermont $12,831 (8) Pennsylvania $12,596 (9) Rhode Island $12,551 (10) New Hampshire $11,915 (11) Maryland $11,861 (12) Minnesota $11,231 (13) Maine $11,096 (14) Illinois $10,343 (15) Wisconsin $10,221 (16) Ohio $10,144 (17) Iowa $10,038 (18) Indiana $9,973 (19) Nebraska $9,913 (20) West Virginia $9,719 (21) Kansas $9,422 (22) North Dakota $9,204 (23) Michigan $9,186 (24) South Carolina $9,074 (25) Virginia $8,743 (26) Louisiana $8,742 (27) Washington $8,694 (28) Missouri $8,605 (29) Montana $8,518 (30) Arkansas $8,281 (31) Kentucky $8,254 (32) South Dakota $8,179 (33) Colorado $8,162 (34) Oregon $8,103 (35) New Mexico $8,071 (36) Georgia $7,782 (37) Alabama $7,670 (38) Texas $7,404 (39) California $7,348 (40) Nevada $7,205 (41) Florida $7,033 (42) Tennessee $6,766 (43) Mississippi $6,746 (44) Oklahoma $6,700 (45) North Carolina $6,547 (46) Arizona $6,405 (47) Utah $6,295 (48) Idaho $5,746 (49)
$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 Funding at 20% poverty www.schoolfundingfairness.org 4 | Page
Figure 2. State Funding Distribution, 2013
Fairness Grade State 0% Poverty 30% Poverty A Delaware $8,764 $15,896 181% Minnesota $9,298 $12,343 133% Utah $5,373 $6,814 127% Ohio $8,661 $10,978 127% New Jersey $13,311 $16,555 124% South Dakota $7,171 $8,735 122% Tennessee $6,189 $7,075 114% B Massachusetts $12,406 $14,095 114% Indiana $9,199 $10,384 113% North Carolina $6,065 $6,803 112% Nebraska $9,345 $10,210 109% Georgia $7,349 $8,008 109% C Colorado $7,770 $8,364 108% Connecticut $14,205 $15,239 107% Wisconsin $9,781 $10,449 107% New Mexico $7,767 $8,227 106% Oklahoma $6,491 $6,807 105% Florida $6,881 $7,111 103% Louisiana $8,574 $8,827 103% Montana $8,366 $8,595 103% Kentucky $8,130 $8,317 102% California $7,261 $7,392 102% Oregon $8,055 $8,127 101% Arkansas $8,270 $8,286 100% Arizona $6,423 $6,396 100% Mississippi $6,776 $6,731 99% Washington $8,738 $8,672 99% Michigan $9,257 $9,151 99% Kansas $9,580 $9,344 98% Maryland $12,079 $11,754 97% Rhode Island $12,832 $12,412 97% D Texas $7,640 $7,289 95% South Carolina $9,376 $8,927 95% New York $17,284 $16,454 95% West Virginia $10,173 $9,500 93% Pennsylvania $13,192 $12,308 93% Iowa $10,582 $9,776 92% New Hampshire $12,637 $11,570 92% F Virginia $9,361 $8,450 90% Alabama $8,213 $7,411 90% Wyoming $15,709 $13,723 87% Idaho $6,359 $5,462 86% Vermont $14,508 $12,067 83% Missouri $9,736 $8,090 83% Maine $12,561 $10,429 83% Illinois $11,774 $9,694 82% North Dakota $10,935 $8,444 77% Nevada $9,025 $6,438 71%
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 Fairness Ratio
Progressive Flat Regressive www.schoolfundingfairness.org 5 | Page
Fairness Measure #2: Funding Distribution The funding distribution measure addresses the key question of whether a state’s funding system recognizes the need for additional resources for students in settings of concentrated student poverty.5 In 2013, sixteen states had progressive funding distributions, down from a high of twenty in 2008, and only two more than 2012.6 Eighteen states had no substantial variation in funding between high poverty and low poverty districts, and fourteen states had regressive funding patterns (see Figure 2).
The four most progressive states, Delaware, Minnesota, Utah and Ohio, provide their highest poverty districts, on average, with between 27% and 81% more funding per student than their lowest poverty districts. In contrast, the most regressive states provide significantly less funding to their highest poverty districts. In Illinois and North Dakota, high poverty districts get only about 80 cents for every dollar in low poverty districts, while in Nevada high poverty districts receive only 71 cents to the dollar.
To view funding profiles, which present regional comparisons of both funding level and funding distribution among a set of geographically similar states, visit www.schoolfundingfairness.org.
Fairness Measure #3: Effort The Effort index takes into account each state’s local and state spending on education in relation to the state’s economic productivity, or gross state product (GSP). Combining these two elements into a ratio provides a sense of the priority education is given in state and local budgets.
In 2013, the Effort index ranged from a high of 5.3% in Vermont to a low of 2.5% in Hawaii. However, effort must be understood within the context of a state’s economic productivity.
One might assume that wealthy states, those with high GSP, will have low effort, and conversely states with low GSP will require higher effort. But the relationship between fiscal capacity and effort is not as strong as one might expect. Many states with low fiscal capacity also have low effort, such as Idaho, Florida and Arizona, while some states with high fiscal capacity also have high effort, such as Alaska, New Jersey, New York and Wyoming.
As has been well documented by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, most states are still providing less funding for K 12 education, despite the economic recovery from the Great Recession.7 While total GSP has rebounded to 2008 levels or higher in most states, 18 states actually spent less on K 12 education, and the Effort index remains below 2008 levels in all but four states. Short term trends are also troubling with only eight states improving their effort index between 2012 and 2013.
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 6 | Page
Figure 3. Effort Index, 2013
A Vermont $42,814 0.053 New Jersey $55,959 0.046 West Virginia $34,742 0.045 Alaska $66,817 0.044 Rhode Island $46,679 0.043 South Carolina $35,608 0.042 New York $62,130 0.042 Arkansas $36,539 0.041 Mississippi $31,642 0.041 Maine $37,405 0.041 Pennsylvania $46,560 0.040 Wyoming $61,297 0.040 B New Hampshire $48,099 0.039 Alabama $37,189 0.039 New Mexico $38,971 0.038 Montana $38,021 0.038 Michigan $41,169 0.038 Ohio $44,579 0.038 Kentucky $38,371 0.037 C Georgia $42,262 0.037 Kansas $44,462 0.036 Wisconsin $45,676 0.036 Connecticut $62,989 0.036 Iowa $48,554 0.036 Maryland $53,176 0.036 Virginia $51,351 0.035 Nebraska $51,664 0.035 Missouri $41,963 0.035 Illinois $51,434 0.035 Minnesota $52,372 0.034 D Massachusetts $61,191 0.033 Utah $42,474 0.033 Oklahoma $40,957 0.032 Louisiana $45,588 0.032 F Idaho $34,608 0.031 Tennessee $41,295 0.031 Indiana $43,347 0.031 Florida $38,197 0.031 Delaware $59,767 0.030 North Carolina $43,200 0.030 Nevada $42,883 0.030 California $53,505 0.030 Texas $52,623 0.029 South Dakota $46,875 0.029 Oregon $49,897 0.029 Washington $53,735 0.029 Colorado $50,457 0.028 North Dakota $63,911 0.028 Arizona $38,762 0.027 Hawaii $49,087 0.025
$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 Per Capita GDP (2009 dollars) Effort Index www.schoolfundingfairness.org 7 | Page
Figure 4. Percentage Change in Effort Index
2008 to 2013 2012 to 2013 Wyoming 15% Alaska 10% Alaska 7% North Dakota 6% Massachusetts 3% North Carolina 5% Connecticut 2% Pennsylvania 4% -1% West Virginia Virginia 3% -3% Illinois Vermont 1% -3% Vermont Utah 1% -3% Delaware Alabama 0% -3% Pennsylvania 0% Oklahoma -4% South Dakota 0% New Jersey -4% Arkansas 0% Kansas -4% Kansas -1% South Dakota -6% Iowa -1% Rhode Island -6% Kentucky -1% Connecticut -6% New Hampshire -1% Montana -6% Louisiana -1% Massachusetts -6% New Jersey -1% South Carolina -7% Tennessee -1% Minnesota -7% Rhode Island -1% Illinois -7% Nebraska -1% Idaho -8% Minnesota -2% Colorado -8% Virginia -2% Maryland -8% North Carolina -2% Mississippi -8% Mississippi -2% Wyoming -9% Oklahoma -2% Oregon -9% Idaho -2% Delaware -9% Maryland -2% New York -9% Utah -2% Missouri -9% Missouri -3% Nevada -9% Montana -3% Wisconsin -10% New Mexico -3% Tennessee -10% Washington -3% Iowa -10% New York -3% Kentucky -10% Maine -4% West Virginia -12% North Dakota -4% Hawaii -12% Indiana -4% Georgia -12% Ohio -5% California -13% Wisconsin -5% Florida -13% South Carolina -5% Washington -14% Colorado -5% New Mexico -14% Alabama -5% Nebraska -15% Oregon -5% Arkansas -15% California -5% Indiana -17% Nevada -6% Texas -17% Georgia -6% New Hampshire -18% Michigan -7% Maine -21% Texas -7% Louisiana -23% Arizona -8% Michigan -24% Florida -8% Arizona -25% Hawaii -9% Ohio
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15%
-25.48% 15.01% -9.33% 10.34% www.schoolfundingfairness.org 8 | Page
Fairness Measure #4: Coverage The coverage indicator measures the share of school aged children enrolled in public schools and the degree of economic disparity between households in the public and nonpublic education systems. The coverage indicator is a gauge of several important issues. First, the proportion of students enrolled in public schools affects the level of financial support necessary for public education. There are two important consequences to wealthier families opting out of public education: these opt outs further concentrate poverty and increase the need for resources in schools, and they can affect the public and political will necessary to generate fair funding through a state’s school finance formula.
The percentage of school aged children enrolled in public schools ranges from 76% in the District of Columbia to a high of 93% in Utah and Nevada. In several states, there are wide disparities in the incomes of families with children in public and nonpublic schools. Nonpublic households in the District of Columbia and Delaware have over two times the income of public school households.
States such as Utah, Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota have comparatively few students who opt out of public schools, and those who do are not very economically different from their public school peers. On the other hand, the District of Columbia, Louisiana and Delaware have a large percentage of students, whose families are significantly wealthier, who do not attend public schools.
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 9 | Page
Figure 5. Coverage Utah 93% 119% (1) Montana 89% 90% (2) Wyoming 90% 103% (3) North Dakota 92% 130% (4) Colorado 92% 125% (5) Idaho 90% 111% (6) Arizona 91% 137% (7) Iowa 89% 125% (8) Vermont 86% 94% (9) Alaska 87% 112% (10) Oklahoma 90% 140% (11) Maine 91% 149% (12) New Mexico 91% 151% (13) Virginia 90% 139% (14) Nevada 93% 173% (15) New Jersey 88% 129% (16) Michigan 88% 130% (17) West Virginia 91% 157% (18) Connecticut 90% 145% (19) Minnesota 87% 128% (20) South Dakota 88% 138% (21) New Hampshire 88% 141% (22) Massachusetts 89% 155% (23) Kansas 88% 143% (24) Washington 89% 154% (25) Arkansas 90% 162% (26) South Carolina 90% 163% (27) Texas 92% 182% (28) Indiana 86% 135% (29) Wisconsin 84% 118% (30) Oregon 88% 157% (31) Illinois 87% 147% (32) Nebraska 86% 140% (33) Alabama 87% 152% (34) California 90% 180% (35) New York 85% 139% (36) North Carolina 89% 170% (37) Pennsylvania 84% 134% (38) Missouri 86% 147% (39) Ohio 84% 140% (40) Georgia 89% 185% (41) Maryland 85% 154% (42) Mississippi 88% 185% (43) Florida 87% 182% (44) Kentucky 87% 185% (45) Rhode Island 86% 187% (46) Tennessee 86% 187% (47) Hawaii 79% 139% (48) Delaware 85% 203% (49) Louisiana 81% 182% (50) District of Columbia 76% 236% (51)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
Percent in Public School NonPublic/Public Income Ratio Note: States ranked by the average of their standardized scores for percent in public school and the public/nonpublic household income ratio. www.schoolfundingfairness.org 10 | Page
The Four Fairness Measures
Table 1 presents the scores of each state on the four fairness indicators. This table provides a scorecard on the strengths and weakness of a particular state's finance system and how a state's performance compares to other states in their region and across the nation.
A few major findings stand out:
Only one state, New Jersey, is positioned relatively well on all four fairness indicators.
Wyoming and Vermont score well on Funding Level, Effort and Coverage, but both scored an “F” on the important Funding Distribution measure. This means that even though these states are funded relatively well, with high funding levels and high effort, there is great inequity in the finance system that disadvantages poor districts.
Texas is the only state that is very poorly positioned on all four fairness measures, receiving an “F” in Funding Effort, a “D” in Funding Distribution and scoring in the lower half of the Funding Level and Coverage rankings.
Idaho and Nevada score poorly on all measures except Coverage.
California, North Carolina and Tennessee score poorly in all areas except Funding Distribution. With a low funding level and low fiscal investment, even a progressive distribution of funds will result in an unfair system.
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 11 | Page
Table 1. The National Report Card
Distribution Effort Funding Level Coverage Alabama F B 38 34 Alaska A110 Arizona C F477 Arkansas C A 31 26 California C F4035 Colorado C F 34 5 Connecticut CC4 19 Delaware A F 7 49 District of Columbia 51 Florida C F4244 Georgia B C 37 41 Hawaii F48 Idaho FF496 Illinois F C 15 32 Indiana B F 19 29 Iowa D C 18 8 Kansas CC22 24 Kentucky C B 32 45 Louisiana C D2750 Maine F A 14 12 Maryland CC12 42 Massachusetts B D 6 23 Michigan C B2417 Minnesota A C 13 20 Mississippi C A 44 43 Missouri F C 29 39 Montana C B 30 2
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 12 | Page
Table 1. The National Report Card (cont.)
Distribution Effort Funding Level Coverage Nebraska B C 20 33 Nevada FF4115 New Hampshire D B 11 22 New Jersey AA316 New Mexico C B 36 13 New York D A236 North Carolina B F4637 North Dakota FF23 4 Ohio A B1740 Oklahoma C D 45 11 Oregon C F 35 31 Pennsylvania D A938 Rhode Island C A1046 South Carolina D A 25 27 South Dakota A F 33 21 Tennessee A F4347 Texas D F3928 Utah A D 48 1 Vermont F A89 Virginia F C 26 14 Washington C F 28 25 West Virginia D A 21 18 Wisconsin CC16 30 Wyoming F A53
Note: Funding Level and Coverage are colored by percentile rank: 1 25%, 25 50%, 50 75%, 75 100%.
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 13 | Page
Fair School Funding and Resource Allocation In this section we explore the consequences of funding fairness, or the lack thereof, for schools and students through three resource allocation indicators. These indicators are examples of how a state’s funding priorities affect the quality and breadth of educational opportunities available for students. Information on methodology and data sources can be found in Appendix A. Detailed, longitudinal data tables for these indicators can be found in Appendix C.
Early Childhood Education Access to early childhood education is a critical component of a fair and equitable education system. Research shows that low income children often come to school lagging behind their peers academically. High quality preschool programs can help reduce those gaps.8 States vary in the degree to which early education programs are available to young children across the socioeconomic spectrum. States that recognize the need for early interventions in children’s educational careers can promote and support early education programs that focus on providing opportunities for low income families.
Not surprisingly, there is great variation in the extent to which young children are enrolled in early childhood programs in the states. Total enrollment of 3 and 4 year olds ranges from a high of 78% in the District of Columbia to a low of 29% in Idaho. These two states also are at the extremes in terms of enrollment among low income children, with 70% enrolled in the District of Columbia and only 25% in Idaho.
Though the importance of early childhood education for low income children is well documented, in most states these children are actually less likely to be enrolled than their peers. Only a few states enroll proportionally more low income students in early childhood programs. In Alaska, West Virginia and Wyoming, low income children are more likely that their peers to be enrolled in early education, as depicted by the enrollment ratio. In Washington, South Dakota, Arizona and Utah, low income children are much less likely to be enrolled than their peers. These states also have overall low participation rates in early education.
Wage Competitiveness A state’s ability to attract and retain high quality teachers is a fundamental component of an equitable and successful school system. Because teachers’ salaries and benefits make up the bulk of school budgets, a fair school funding system is required to maintain an equitable distribution of high quality teachers in all districts. One of the most important ways that states can ensure that teaching jobs remain desirable in the job market is to provide competitive wages.
We examine wage competiveness at two stages: early career and mid career. This provides a more nuanced view of how states fare in both attracting workers to teaching and in providing incentives that encourage long term commitment to the profession. We have constructed a measure of wage competiveness that compares teachers’ salaries to the salaries of other professionals in the same labor
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 14 | Page
market and of similar age, degree level, and hours worked. Results are reported for 25 and 45 year olds.
Most states’ average teachers’ salaries are far below the salaries of their non teacher counterparts. Nationally, teachers beginning their careers at age 25 earn about 82% of what non teachers earn. Only three states have average teacher wages that are comparable or greater than other similar workers – North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Wages are least competitive in Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, Virginia and Washington, where teachers earn about 30% less.
Wage competitiveness worsens as teachers advance in their careers. At age 45, teachers nationally earn only about 72% of non teacher wages. No state provides the average teacher with a salary that is more competitive than non teachers’ salaries, though Vermont, Montana and Wyoming are the most competitive. In North Dakota, in the twenty years between ages 25 and 45, teachers slip from earning about the same as non teachers to earning 19% less. The least competitive states become even more disadvantaged as teachers move towards mid career, with comparable salaries dipping to 35 40% below those of non teachers.
Teacher to Student Ratios The fundamental premise of fair school funding is that additional resources are required to address the needs of students in poverty. In schools and classrooms across the country, this means that high poverty schools require more staff to address the challenges of serving low income students, since these schools can benefit from smaller class sizes, literacy and math specialists, instructional coaches, and social services such as counselors and nurses. To examine this, we construct a measure of staffing fairness that compares the number of teachers per 100 students in high and low poverty districts.
The pupil to teacher fairness measure, or the comparison of teacher to student ratios in high and low poverty districts, ranges from a progressive 143% in North Dakota to a regressive 71% in Nevada. In other words, high poverty districts in North Dakota have, on average, 43% more teachers per 100 students than low poverty districts, potentially resulting in smaller class sizes, while in Nevada, the poorest districts have about 29% fewer teachers per 100 students than low poverty districts. Predicted staff ratios, at 10% poverty, range from a high of 8.3 teachers per 100 students in New Jersey to a low of 4.3 in Utah and California.
Twenty two states have a progressive distribution of teachers, i.e., at least 5% more teachers per student in high poverty districts. Eight states are regressive and have fewer teachers per student in high poverty districts (Wisconsin, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Connecticut, Florida, Rhode Island and Nevada). The remaining 18 states have essentially no difference in staffing ratios between low and high poverty districts. This means that the majority of states are failing to systematically provide an equitable distribution of teachers so that high poverty schools have smaller teacher to student ratios than low poverty schools.
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 15 | Page
Figure 6. Early Childhood Education
Wyoming 43% 53% 123% West Virginia 37% 40% 107% Alaska 38% 40% 106% Montana 33% 33% 101% Hawaii 54% 54% 101% North Dakota 39% 37% 95% Iowa 49% 47% 95% Rhode Island 44% 42% 94% New Jersey 62% 57% 92% Massachusetts 59% 54% 92% Mississippi 47% 43% 91% Oklahoma 39% 35% 90% Illinois 51% 45% 89% Louisiana 49% 44% 89% Wisconsin 45% 40% 89% District of Columbia 78% 70% 89% South Carolina 42% 37% 89% Minnesota 48% 42% 89% Maine 45% 40% 88% Ohio 46% 41% 88% New Hampshire 59% 52% 88% New York 56% 49% 88% Kentucky 42% 37% 87% New Mexico 37% 32% 87% Indiana 36% 31% 87% Missouri 44% 38% 86% Texas 41% 35% 86% Alabama 41% 35% 86% Arkansas 50% 42% 84% Kansas 42% 35% 84% Michigan 46% 39% 84% Florida 50% 42% 84% California 48% 40% 84% Nevada 32% 26% 83% Idaho 29% 25% 83% Oregon 41% 34% 83% Colorado 51% 42% 82% Georgia 48% 39% 81% Tennessee 38% 31% 80% Delaware 43% 34% 78% Pennsylvania 46% 36% 78% Nebraska 38% 30% 78% Maryland 47% 37% 78% Virginia 45% 35% 77% Connecticut 62% 48% 77% Vermont 54% 41% 77% North Carolina 44% 34% 76% Utah 42% 32% 75% Arizona 36% 27% 75% South Dakota 37% 26% 72% Washington 38% 26% 68% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 50% 100% % Total Enrolled % Low Income Enrolled Enrollment Ratio
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 16 | Page
Figure 7. Wage Competitiveness
North Dakota 101% 81% (1) Wyoming 99% 83% (2) Montana 95% 84% (3) South Dakota 100% 79% (4) Vermont 91% 85% (5) Pennsylvania 93% 81% (6) Iowa 95% 77% (7) Wisconsin 89% 77% (8) Idaho 89% 77% (9) Rhode Island 85% 79% (10) Arkansas 88% 75% (12) Maine 84% 79% (11) Michigan 86% 76% (13) Alaska 83% 78% (14) New Jersey 85% 76% (15) Nebraska 86% 75% (16) New York 83% 77% (17) Ohio 85% 73% (18) New Mexico 84% 72% (19) Indiana 84% 71% (22) Maryland 82% 73% (21) Illinois 83% 71% (24) Nevada 80% 74% (20) Kentucky 83% 72% (23) South Carolina 83% 72% (25) Connecticut 79% 73% (26) Hawaii 78% 73% (27) California 79% 72% (28) Oregon 79% 71% (29) Minnesota 80% 70% (32) Louisiana 79% 71% (31) Florida 78% 72% (30) Alabama 80% 69% (33) Delaware 78% 69% (34) West Virginia 78% 68% (36) Massachusetts 78% 69% (35) Kansas 78% 68% (37) New Hampshire 76% 69% (38) Tennessee 77% 67% (40) Utah 75% 69% (39) Mississippi 75% 68% (41) Texas 76% 67% (42) Missouri 73% 67% (43) Oklahoma 74% 64% (45) District of Columbia 74% 64% (47) North Carolina 73% 65% (44) Washington 72% 66% (46) Georgia 71% 66% (48) Virginia 72% 63% (49) Arizona 71% 60% (50) Colorado 67% 61% (51) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Wage Ratio at Age 25 Wage Ratio at Age 45
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 17 | Page
Figure 8. Teacher to Student Fairness Ratio
North Dakota 7.4 143% (1) New Hampshire 7.4 128% (2) Minnesota 6.0 126% (3) Indiana 5.5 123% (4) Utah 4.3 121% (5) Alaska 5.6 113% (6) Ohio 5.6 113% (7) Arkansas 6.4 112% (8) Montana 6.0 112% (9) Delaware 6.9 112% (10) Massachusetts 7.4 111% (11) Colorado 5.6 111% (12) South Dakota 5.8 111% (13) Washington 5.1 110% (14) Oregon 4.5 108% (15) Oklahoma 5.8 108% (16) Michigan 5.4 108% (17) New Jersey 8.3 108% (18) Idaho 5.2 107% (19) New Mexico 6.4 107% (20) Kansas 7.3 105% (21) West Virginia 7.1 105% (22) Iowa 6.7 105% (23) Georgia 6.5 104% (24) North Carolina 6.5 104% (25) Kentucky 6.2 104% (26) Tennessee 6.8 102% (27) Nebraska 6.8 102% (28) Arizona 5.2 102% (29) Maine 7.7 101% (30) South Carolina 6.7 100% (31) Virginia 7.4 100% (32) New York 8.0 99% (33) Texas 6.7 99% (34) California 4.3 99% (35) Wyoming 8.0 98% (36) Vermont 7.4 98% (37) Mississippi 6.8 98% (38) Alabama 7.3 98% (39) Illinois 7.1 98% (40) Missouri 6.9 97% (41) Wisconsin 6.6 94% (42) Maryland 7.1 94% (43) Pennsylvania 7.0 94% (44) Louisiana 7.0 93% (45) Connecticut 8.2 93% (46) Florida 6.9 92% (47) Rhode Island 7.4 86% (48) Nevada 5.5 71% (49)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% Teachers per 100 students at 10% Poverty Staffing Fairness
Progressive Flat Regressive
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 18 | Page
A state's performance on these three resource allocation measures can be juxtaposed against the state's ranking on the funding fairness indicators. This comparison provides clear evidence of how the fairness of a state's school funding system directly impacts the availability and distribution of essential resources to schools.
The correlation between funding fairness and essential resource availability is clear and compelling. Many of the low performing states on the funding fairness indicators are also ranked at the bottom of the resource allocation indicators, and vice versa. For example, states that score well on funding distribution also tend to exhibit fair teacher distribution (e.g., Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio and Utah). States with low funding levels tend to have less competitive teacher wages (e.g., Arizona, Oklahoma and North Carolina). These patterns are consistent across indicators, meaning that students in states with unfair school funding are likely to experience a deprivation of resources crucial for their success in school.9
Conclusion The National Report Card provides a set of indicators that, when evaluated together, provide a robust understanding of the fairness of each state’s school funding system. Each of the indicators – Level, Distribution, Effort and Coverage – are important in their own right. But the complexity of each state’s school finance system is best understood by considering the interaction of all four factors.
It should be noted that each state’s finance system is embedded in a complicated historical, political and economic landscape. The NRC does not address these complex factors as they play out state by state. Therefore, the report’s results should be approached with the understanding that every state has a unique story. The findings, however, can be useful in new or ongoing efforts to improve state funding of public education through the implementation or improvement of finance systems that recognize the demographic and resource needs of all students.
End Notes 1 Bruce Baker, EdD, is a professor in the Department of Educational Theory, Policy and Administration in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University. He is co author of Financing Education Systems with Preston Green and Craig Richards, author of numerous peer reviewed articles on education finance, and sits on the editorial boards of the Journal of Education Finance and Education Finance and Policy as well as serving as a research fellow for the National Education Policy Center. Danielle Farrie, PhD, is Research Director at Education Law Center. She conducts analysis to support litigation and public policy for ELC and partner organizations. Before joining ELC, she conducted research in the field of urban education on such topics as school choice, racial segregation, and school segregation and co authored peer reviewed articles on how race affects perceptions of school quality and on parental involvement among low income families. She holds a PhD in sociology from Temple University. www.schoolfundingfairness.org 19 | Page
Theresa Luhm, Esq., is Managing Director of Education Law Center. She oversees programs, staff and fundraising and has participated in the last several rounds of New Jersey’s landmark Abbott v. Burke school funding litigation. Prior to joining ELC, she worked as a research analyst at the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Pennsylvania. She has a B.A. with honors from the University of Wisconsin Madison, a Master’s degree in Public Policy from Georgetown University, and a J.D. from Rutgers Newark School of Law. David G. Sciarra, Esq., is Executive Director of Education Law Center. A practicing civil rights lawyer since 1978, he has litigated a wide range of cases involving socioeconomic rights, including affordable housing, shelter for the homeless and welfare rights. Since 1996, he has litigated to enforce access for low income and minority children to an equal and adequate education under state and federal law, and served as counsel to the plaintiff students in New Jersey’s landmark Abbott v. Burke case. He also does research, writing and lecturing on education law and policy in such areas as school finance, early education and school reform. 2 This report uses a slightly different measure of spending on education than that used in earlier reports. In prior editions, spending was measured as total state and local revenues for K 12 education. We now use an indicator of total direct expense for elementary and secondary education from the The Urban Institute Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center Data Query System (SLF DQS), available at http://slfdqs.taxpolicycenter.org.
3 The U.S. has no established outcome measures for the 50 states and no national uniform program or input standards that would allow for measuring the “cost” of providing equal educational opportunities across all states. Thus, it is not feasible at present to compare current funding levels with a research based measure of the cost of educating all students in U.S. public schools to achieve accepted national outcomes.
4 To calculate grades, a standardized score (z score) is calculated as the state’s difference from the mean, expressed in standard deviations. Grades are as follows: A = 2/3 standard deviation above the mean (z > 0.67); B = between 1/3 and 2/3 standard deviations above the mean (.33 < z <.67); C = between 1/3 standard deviation below and 1/3 standard deviation above the mean ( .33 < z < .33); D = between 1/3 and 2/3 standard deviations below the mean ( .33 > z > .67); F = 2/3 standard deviation below the mean (z < .67). In some cases, the tables show states that have the same numerical score but different letter grades because their unrounded scores place them on opposite sides of the grading cutoffs.
5 Hawaii and the District of Columbia are excluded from this analysis because they are single district systems. Alaska is also excluded because the state’s unique geography and sparse population, so highly correlated with poverty, result in inconsistent estimates of within state resource distribution.
6 Year to year comparisons rely on updated models, and, therefore, may not align exactly with previously published results. To view longitudinal results with the updated models, visit www.schoolfundingfairness.org.
7 See Leachman, M., N. Albares, K. Masterson, and M. Wallace, “Most States Have Cut School Funding, and Some Continue Cutting.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. January 25, 2016,
8 For a review, see Barnett, W.S. (2011), “Effectiveness of early educational intervention.” Science, 333, 975 978.
9 For a deeper exploration of the consequences of school funding levels, distributions and changes in classroom resources see “The Changing Distribution of Educational Opportunities: 1993 2012” by Bruce Baker, Danielle Farrie, and David G. Sciarra in The Dynamics of Opportunity in America: Evidence and Perspectives edited by Irwin Kirsch and Henry Braun. www.schoolfundingfairness.org 20 | Page
Appendix A: Data and Methodology
Fairness Measures Funding Level: A regression model predicts an average per pupil funding level for each state, while holding other factors constant. This eliminates the variation in funding associated with characteristics that vary between districts and across states, and determines average funding at the state level under hypothetical, yet meaningful, set of conditions. State and local funding levels are predicted with the following variables: student poverty, regional wage variation, economies of scale, population density, and the interaction between economies of scale and density. Reported funding levels are predicted using national averages for all independent variables and at a poverty rate of 20%.
The regression equation includes a panel of 21 years of data and presents estimates for the most recent five years. Models used in previous editions only included 3 year panels, with estimates reported for the most recent year. Due to this change in modeling, there will be slight differences in the results of this edition and previously published editions.
Funding Distribution: Using the above regression model, the relationship between student poverty and school funding is estimated for each state. Funding levels are predicted for poverty levels at 10% intervals from 0% to 30% under the average conditions within each state. The fairness ratio is calculated by dividing state and local funding at 30% poverty by funding at 0% poverty. A higher ratio indicates greater fairness.
Effort: The Effort index is calculated by dividing the total direct expense for elementary and secondary education by the state gross domestic product.
Coverage: The Coverage indicator includes two measures. First is the proportion of school age children attending the state’s public schools, as opposed to private schools, homeschooling, or not attending school at all. The second is the ratio of median household income of students who are enrolled in public schools to those who are not. The Coverage rankings are computed by calculating a standardized score (z score) for each measure and then taking the average.
Resource Allocation Indicators Early Childhood: The early childhood indicator compares school enrollment rates for 3 and 4 year olds by income level. Low income is defined as a family income below 185% of the Federal poverty level. This is the threshold at which students qualify for free or reduced lunch. School enrollment is not limited to public school and there are no restrictions on the number of days per week or hours per day the student attends. The ratio is calculated as the percentage of enrolled low income students over the percentage of enrolled not low income students. States are ranked on this ratio.
Wage Competitiveness: This indicator uses a regression model predicting average wages for teachers and non teachers while controlling for age, education, and hours/weeks worked. The ratio of wages between teachers and non teachers is computed at age 25 and 45 and indicates whether teachers, on
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 21 | Page average, are paid more or less than non teachers. States are ranked by calculating a standardized score (z score) for the ratio at age 25 and 45 and averaging those scores.
Teacher to Student Ratios: The teacher to student ratio fairness measure is calculating by generating a regression model to establish the relationship between district teacher to student ratios (teachers per 100 students) and student poverty. Similar to the funding fairness analysis, the model controls for size, sparsity, and poverty and then estimates teacher to student ratios at various poverty levels for each state. The fairness ratio is calculated by dividing predicted teacher to student ratio at 30% poverty by the predicted ratio at 0% poverty.
Table A 1. Data Sources Fairness Measures and Resource Allocation Indicators Indicator Data Element Data Source Funding Local and state U.S. Census F 33 Public http://www.census.gov/govs/sc Level & revenues per pupil Elementary Secondary hool/ Funding Education Finance Survey Distribution Student poverty U.S. Census Small Area http://www.census.gov/did/ww rates Income and Poverty w/saipe/data/index.html Estimates Regional wage Taylor’s Extended NCES http://bush.tamu.edu/research/ variation Comparable Wage Index faculty/Taylor_CWI Economies of NCES Common Core of Data http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ Scale/District Size – Local Education Agency Universe Survey Population Density U.S. Census Population https://www.census.gov/popest Estimates /index.html Effort Gross State Product Bureau of Economic Analysis http://bea.gov/itable/ Total direct expense The Urban Institute http://slfdqs.taxpolicycenter.org for elementary and Brookings Institution Tax secondary education Policy Center Data Query System (SLF DQS) Coverage % 6 16 Year olds U.S. Census American Integrated Public Use Micro enrolled in school Community Survey Data System www.ipums.org (3 Year Sample) Median household U.S. Census American Integrated Public Use Micro income by school Community Survey Data System www.ipums.org (3 enrollment Year Sample) Early School enrollment of U.S. Census American Integrated Public Use Micro Childhood 3 and 4 year olds by Community Survey Data System www.ipums.org (3 Education household income Year Sample) Teacher to District teachers per NCES Common Core of Data http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ Student 100 students – Local Education Agency Fairness Universe Survey
www.schoolfundingfairness.org 22 | Page Appendix B: Fairness Measures
Table B 1. Funding Level
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Funding Level Rank Funding Level Rank Funding Level Rank Funding Level Rank Funding Level Rank Alabama $7,902 41 $7,355 41 $7,661 38 $7,671 38 $7,670 38 Alaska $17,614 1 $14,676 3 $14,619 2 $15,375 2 $17,331 1 Arizona $6,895 46 $6,438 46 $6,459 47 $6,233 47 $6,405 47 Arkansas $7,917 40 $7,958 33 $8,108 30 $8,410 29 $8,281 31 California $7,931 39 $6,907 43 $7,384 41 $7,226 41 $7,348 40 Colorado $8,261 33 $8,329 27 $7,959 35 $7,914 37 $8,162 34 Connecticut $14,390 5 $13,156 5 $13,249 5 $14,342 4 $14,886 4 Delaware $12,076 9 $11,049 13 $11,037 11 $12,015 9 $13,034 7 Florida $8,045 37 $7,272 42 $7,240 42 $6,873 42 $7,033 42 Georgia $8,536 28 $7,691 36 $8,016 32 $7,922 36 $7,782 37 Idaho $6,608 49 $5,659 49 $6,066 48 $5,691 49 $5,746 49 Illinois $8,421 32 $8,625 23 $9,988 17 $10,203 16 $10,343 15 Indiana $10,245 15 $10,792 14 $9,651 19 $9,939 20 $9,973 19 Iowa $9,614 20 $8,775 21 $9,703 18 $9,980 19 $10,038 18 Kansas $10,092 16 $8,997 20 $9,046 23 $9,432 22 $9,422 22 Kentucky $8,131 36 $7,651 37 $7,953 36 $8,120 33 $8,254 32 Louisiana $9,041 22 $8,297 28 $8,399 25 $8,764 25 $8,742 27 Maine $10,667 14 $11,060 12 $10,873 14 $10,531 15 $11,096 14 Maryland $12,208 8 $11,276 11 $11,360 10 $11,755 11 $11,861 12 Massachusetts $12,929 7 $12,424 6 $12,695 6 $13,103 6 $13,508 6 Michigan $8,738 25 $8,553 24 $8,907 24 $8,965 24 $9,186 24 Minnesota $10,836 13 $10,008 16 $11,028 13 $11,035 14 $11,231 13 Mississippi $6,958 45 $6,510 45 $6,489 46 $6,649 45 $6,746 44 Missouri $8,172 34 $7,552 38 $8,072 31 $8,532 27 $8,605 29 Montana $8,557 27 $8,169 31 $8,132 29 $8,307 32 $8,518 30 Nebraska $9,835 18 $9,359 18 $9,378 20 $9,651 21 $9,913 20 Nevada $7,482 43 $7,434 39 $7,203 43 $7,234 40 $7,205 41 New Hampshire $11,204 12 $11,440 8 $11,029 12 $11,564 12 $11,915 11 New Jersey $15,699 3 $13,541 4 $13,386 4 $15,278 3 $15,394 3 New Mexico $8,871 23 $7,822 35 $7,999 33 $8,068 34 $8,071 36 New York $15,557 4 $14,876 2 $15,521 1 $16,239 1 $16,726 2 North Carolina $8,513 29 $8,998 19 $7,468 40 $6,484 46 $6,547 46 North Dakota $8,430 31 $8,647 22 $9,053 22 $9,219 23 $9,204 23 Ohio $10,081 17 $9,944 17 $10,023 16 $10,022 18 $10,144 17 Oklahoma $6,786 47 $6,266 47 $6,545 44 $6,666 44 $6,700 45 Oregon $8,167 35 $7,865 34 $7,738 37 $8,043 35 $8,103 35 Pennsylvania $11,601 11 $11,337 10 $11,576 9 $12,065 8 $12,596 9 Rhode Island $11,804 10 $11,400 9 $11,815 8 $11,973 10 $12,551 10 South Carolina $8,619 26 $8,131 32 $8,387 26 $8,551 26 $9,074 25 South Dakota $7,954 38 $8,187 30 $7,965 34 $8,393 31 $8,179 33 Tennessee $6,669 48 $6,546 44 $6,545 45 $6,704 43 $6,766 43 Texas $7,816 42 $7,400 40 $7,509 39 $7,451 39 $7,404 39 Utah $6,961 44 $6,159 48 $6,025 49 $6,185 48 $6,295 48 Vermont $13,153 6 $12,136 7 $12,140 7 $12,523 7 $12,831 8 Virginia $9,497 21 $8,453 25 $8,336 27 $8,399 30 $8,743 26 Washington $8,481 30 $8,206 29 $8,267 28 $8,471 28 $8,694 28 West Virginia $8,863 24 $8,347 26 $9,113 21 $11,100 13 $9,719 21 Wisconsin $9,695 19 $10,048 15 $10,677 15 $10,161 17 $10,221 16 Wyoming $17,173 2 $15,762 1 $14,501 3 $13,931 5 $14,355 5
______ 23 | Page Table B 2. Funding Distribution
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Fairness Ratio Grade Fairness Ratio Grade Fairness Ratio Grade Fairness Ratio Grade Fairness Ratio Grade Alabama 90% F 92% D 91% D 90% D 90% F Arizona 100% C 100% C 94% D 95% D 100% C Arkansas 107% C 102% C 98% C 96% C 100% C California 110% B 105% C 109% A 105% C 102% C Colorado 99% C 100% C 97% C 99% C 108% C Connecticut 118% A 108% B 100% C 106% C 107% C Delaware 122% A 99% C 98% C 139% A 181% A Florida 97% D 109% B 104% B 104% C 103% C Georgia 107% C 109% B 109% A 102% C 109% B Idaho 92% F 79% F 99% C 96% C 86% F Illinois 73% F 72% F 86% F 90% F 82% F Indiana 115% B 117% A 115% A 115% A 113% B Iowa 98% D 89% F 93% D 91% D 92% D Kansas 102% C 101% C 98% C 97% C 98% C Kentucky 108% C 107% B 103% C 105% C 102% C Louisiana 103% C 114% A 105% B 113% A 103% C Maine 92% F 101% C 95% C 84% F 83% F Maryland 108% C 98% C 98% C 96% C 97% C Massachusetts 122% A 124% A 116% A 114% A 114% B Michigan 95% D 94% D 95% C 98% C 99% C Minnesota 131% A 134% A 127% A 134% A 133% A Mississippi 97% D 96% C 98% C 102% C 99% C Missouri 90% F 87% F 86% F 89% F 83% F Montana 117% A 101% C 100% C 100% C 103% C Nebraska 115% B 98% C 100% C 106% C 109% B Nevada 73% F 64% F 58% F 44% F 71% F New Hampshire 95% D 99% C 76% F 89% F 92% D New Jersey 149% A 120% A 111% A 130% A 124% A New Mexico 107% C 105% C 103% C 102% C 106% C New York 94% D 91% D 92% D 96% C 95% D North Carolina 64% F 58% F 98% C 110% B 112% B North Dakota 85% F 85% F 82% F 80% F 77% F Ohio 134% A 128% A 129% A 127% A 127% A Oklahoma 103% C 100% C 106% B 107% B 105% C Oregon 102% C 99% C 95% C 96% C 101% C Pennsylvania 95% D 90% D 89% F 91% D 93% D Rhode Island 102% C 98% C 98% C 94% D 97% C South Carolina 98% D 97% C 90% F 103% C 95% D South Dakota 120% A 126% A 125% A 136% A 122% A Tennessee 109% C 112% A 113% A 112% A 114% A Texas 94% D 95% C 93% D 95% D 95% D Utah 150% A 122% A 125% A 124% A 127% A Vermont 99% C 79% F 78% F 82% F 83% F Virginia 99% C 96% C 90% F 91% D 90% F Washington 95% D 92% D 93% D 96% C 99% C West Virginia 96% D 110% B 116% A 95% D 93% D Wisconsin 99% C 104% C 106% B 105% C 107% C Wyoming 123% A 102% C 91% D 81% F 87% F
______24 | Page Table B 3. Effort
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita Per Capita GSP GSP GSP GSP GSP (2009 Effort (2009 Effort (2009 Effort (2009 Effort (2009 Effort dollars) Index Grade dollars) Index Grade dollars) Index Grade dollars) Index Grade dollars) Index Grade Alabama $35,597 0.047 A $36,237 0.044 A $36,499 0.041 B $36,750 0.039 B $37,189 0.039 B Alaska $70,918 0.049 A $67,761 0.046 A $68,707 0.043 A $70,804 0.040 B $66,817 0.044 A Arizona $38,296 0.037 D $38,299 0.034 F $38,595 0.031 F $38,895 0.030 F $38,762 0.027 F Arkansas $34,669 0.047 A $35,469 0.049 A $35,947 0.048 A $35,924 0.044 A $36,539 0.041 A California $51,831 0.036 F $51,821 0.033 F $52,022 0.031 F $52,724 0.031 F $53,505 0.030 F Colorado $50,275 0.033 F $50,135 0.033 F $50,007 0.031 F $50,254 0.029 F $50,457 0.028 F Connecticut $63,612 0.038 D $63,955 0.037 D $63,311 0.036 C $63,363 0.036 C $62,989 0.036 C Delaware $62,973 0.030 F $62,698 0.029 F $62,903 0.029 F $61,271 0.031 F $59,767 0.030 F Florida $38,771 0.039 D $38,396 0.036 D $37,627 0.036 C $37,790 0.032 F $38,197 0.031 F Georgia $42,145 0.046 A $41,735 0.042 B $41,889 0.040 B $41,904 0.039 B $42,262 0.037 C Hawaii $48,268 0.036 F $48,858 0.031 F $49,117 0.028 F $49,333 0.026 F $49,087 0.025 F Idaho $34,749 0.037 D $34,845 0.037 D $34,474 0.033 F $34,102 0.032 F $34,608 0.031 F Illinois $50,102 0.039 D $50,323 0.037 D $51,203 0.036 C $52,018 0.035 C $51,434 0.035 C Indiana $40,694 0.038 D $43,004 0.036 D $42,962 0.033 F $42,903 0.033 D $43,347 0.031 F Iowa $45,087 0.039 C $45,837 0.040 C $46,696 0.038 C $48,319 0.037 C $48,554 0.036 C Kansas $43,059 0.045 B $44,054 0.043 B $45,463 0.038 C $45,101 0.036 C $44,462 0.036 C Kentucky $36,115 0.040 C $37,467 0.040 C $37,986 0.039 C $38,125 0.039 B $38,371 0.037 B Louisiana $46,885 0.038 D $48,519 0.034 F $46,489 0.034 D $46,850 0.035 C $45,588 0.032 D Maine $37,804 0.047 A $38,280 0.046 A $37,860 0.047 A $37,784 0.044 A $37,405 0.041 A Maryland $52,901 0.039 D $53,715 0.039 C $53,940 0.037 C $53,704 0.036 C $53,176 0.036 C Massachusetts $58,590 0.034 F $60,172 0.033 F $61,127 0.032 F $61,863 0.034 D $61,191 0.033 D Michigan $36,882 0.049 A $38,854 0.046 A $39,715 0.044 A $40,226 0.041 A $41,169 0.038 B Minnesota $49,133 0.040 C $50,550 0.036 D $51,344 0.035 D $51,615 0.034 D $52,372 0.034 C Mississippi $31,173 0.048 A $31,493 0.046 A $31,227 0.044 A $31,862 0.042 A $31,642 0.041 A Missouri $41,949 0.039 C $42,316 0.038 C $41,674 0.037 C $41,807 0.036 C $41,963 0.035 C Montana $35,889 0.045 A $36,728 0.043 B $37,680 0.040 B $37,767 0.039 B $38,021 0.038 B Nebraska $48,042 0.039 C $49,279 0.039 C $51,099 0.036 C $50,974 0.037 C $51,664 0.035 C Nevada $44,375 0.036 F $43,781 0.033 F $43,891 0.033 F $43,307 0.031 F $42,883 0.030 F New Hampshire $46,074 0.042 C $47,411 0.042 B $47,797 0.043 A $48,293 0.041 A $48,099 0.039 B New Jersey $55,366 0.051 A $55,610 0.050 A $54,913 0.047 A $55,978 0.046 A $55,959 0.046 A New Mexico $39,697 0.048 A $39,291 0.045 A $39,117 0.042 A $39,114 0.040 A $38,971 0.038 B New York $59,205 0.047 A $61,415 0.047 A $61,188 0.045 A $62,742 0.043 A $62,130 0.042 A North Carolina $43,390 0.035 F $43,501 0.032 F $43,699 0.030 F $43,159 0.029 F $43,200 0.030 F North Dakota $48,134 0.033 F $50,934 0.034 F $55,387 0.030 F $64,618 0.027 F $63,911 0.028 F Ohio $41,493 0.045 A $42,308 0.044 A $43,627 0.042 A $44,425 0.041 A $44,579 0.038 B Oklahoma $38,562 0.041 C $38,768 0.039 C $39,577 0.033 F $40,664 0.032 F $40,957 0.032 D Oregon $47,349 0.036 F $49,535 0.032 F $51,243 0.030 F $51,121 0.029 F $49,897 0.029 F Pennsylvania $44,678 0.043 C $45,561 0.042 B $46,043 0.041 B $46,293 0.039 B $46,560 0.040 A Rhode Island $45,420 0.045 A $46,278 0.044 A $46,220 0.044 A $46,604 0.043 A $46,679 0.043 A South Carolina $35,141 0.051 A $35,325 0.048 A $35,801 0.044 A $35,563 0.043 A $35,608 0.042 A South Dakota $45,103 0.033 F $45,633 0.032 F $48,239 0.031 F $47,190 0.029 F $46,875 0.029 F Tennessee $39,219 0.035 F $39,487 0.035 F $40,306 0.034 D $41,283 0.032 F $41,295 0.031 F Texas $47,224 0.041 C $47,668 0.039 C $48,604 0.035 D $50,670 0.031 F $52,623 0.029 F Utah $41,810 0.038 D $41,702 0.034 F $42,229 0.033 F $41,890 0.033 D $42,474 0.033 D Vermont $40,410 0.056 A $41,827 0.056 A $43,013 0.053 A $43,273 0.052 A $42,814 0.053 A Virginia $51,677 0.036 F $52,290 0.035 F $52,094 0.034 D $51,933 0.034 D $51,351 0.035 C Washington $52,626 0.034 F $53,075 0.031 F $52,860 0.031 F $53,718 0.030 F $53,735 0.029 F West Virginia $34,113 0.046 A $34,869 0.049 A $35,633 0.047 A $34,347 0.047 A $34,742 0.045 A Wisconsin $43,323 0.042 C $44,309 0.042 B $45,061 0.041 B $45,429 0.037 C $45,676 0.036 C Wyoming $67,542 0.043 B $66,134 0.042 B $66,080 0.038 C $61,477 0.040 A $61,297 0.040 A
______ 25 | Page Table B 4. Coverage
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Coverage Income Ratio Rank Coverage Income Ratio Rank Coverage Income Ratio Rank Coverage Income Ratio Rank Coverage Income Ratio Rank Alabama 87% 153% 35 89% 160% 28 88% 168% 41 88% 155% 36 87% 152% 34 Alaska 90% 106% 4 90% 109% 7 91% 112% 3 88% 125% 14 87% 112% 10 Arizona 91% 143% 7 92% 141% 9 92% 129% 5 92% 142% 6 91% 137% 7 Arkansas 90% 151% 15 92% 172% 20 90% 142% 14 90% 167% 27 90% 162% 26 California 90% 168% 32 90% 172% 29 90% 180% 33 90% 179% 34 90% 180% 35 Colorado 90% 133% 8 90% 130% 12 91% 140% 10 90% 144% 12 92% 125% 5 Connecticut 88% 151% 28 88% 158% 36 88% 152% 27 89% 143% 15 90% 145% 19 Delaware 83% 168% 48 80% 167% 48 80% 176% 49 86% 175% 48 85% 203% 49 District of Columbia 80% 290% 51 80% 405% 51 77% 297% 51 79% 280% 51 76% 236% 51 Florida 87% 173% 44 87% 177% 45 87% 181% 45 88% 173% 44 87% 182% 44 Georgia 88% 176% 40 88% 162% 35 90% 184% 40 89% 179% 38 89% 185% 41 Hawaii 76% 169% 50 78% 139% 49 79% 152% 48 80% 164% 49 79% 139% 48 Idaho 89% 105% 5 92% 124% 4 91% 123% 7 92% 116% 2 90% 111% 6 Illinois 87% 149% 31 87% 148% 34 88% 157% 34 87% 148% 33 87% 147% 32 Indiana 87% 144% 30 87% 148% 37 86% 153% 39 87% 142% 32 86% 135% 29 Iowa 88% 118% 12 89% 124% 15 87% 123% 16 88% 126% 13 89% 125% 8 Kansas 88% 131% 14 89% 130% 16 89% 142% 23 87% 125% 17 88% 143% 24 Kentucky 87% 178% 42 87% 174% 43 88% 179% 43 87% 173% 46 87% 185% 45 Louisiana 81% 177% 49 81% 185% 50 81% 198% 50 81% 191% 50 81% 182% 50 Maine 88% 133% 18 91% 115% 5 88% 101% 9 89% 124% 7 91% 149% 12 Maryland 83% 157% 47 85% 162% 47 85% 149% 44 86% 147% 42 85% 154% 42 Massachusetts 87% 144% 33 88% 139% 27 88% 139% 21 88% 147% 29 89% 155% 23 Michigan 88% 135% 19 88% 130% 21 89% 138% 19 87% 136% 24 88% 130% 17 Minnesota 86% 120% 21 87% 127% 25 88% 122% 11 86% 133% 30 87% 128% 20 Mississippi 87% 174% 43 86% 167% 46 88% 176% 42 88% 183% 45 88% 185% 43 Missouri 84% 136% 39 85% 140% 38 85% 161% 46 86% 148% 43 86% 147% 39 Montana 89% 99% 6 90% 117% 10 88% 104% 8 89% 100% 3 89% 90% 2 Nebraska 86% 146% 34 87% 128% 26 87% 132% 24 86% 146% 41 86% 140% 33 Nevada 93% 182% 24 93% 157% 11 92% 157% 12 92% 170% 16 93% 173% 15 New Hampshire 89% 124% 11 88% 123% 18 89% 136% 13 89% 118% 8 88% 141% 22 New Jersey 87% 126% 16 87% 124% 23 88% 128% 17 88% 133% 19 88% 129% 16 New Mexico 89% 158% 27 89% 137% 19 92% 167% 18 90% 156% 22 91% 151% 13 New York 83% 154% 46 85% 148% 44 85% 140% 38 86% 136% 35 85% 139% 36 North Carolina 88% 166% 36 89% 163% 32 89% 173% 35 89% 163% 31 89% 170% 37 North Dakota 86% 103% 10 87% 117% 22 86% 141% 36 88% 145% 26 92% 130% 4 Ohio 84% 139% 38 85% 141% 41 85% 135% 32 86% 142% 39 84% 140% 40 Oklahoma 90% 160% 26 92% 161% 14 90% 158% 22 90% 140% 10 90% 140% 11 Oregon 89% 146% 23 90% 134% 13 90% 143% 15 88% 138% 20 88% 157% 31 Pennsylvania 83% 142% 41 85% 138% 39 84% 130% 37 85% 134% 40 84% 134% 38 Rhode Island 86% 151% 37 87% 173% 42 88% 146% 25 88% 162% 37 86% 187% 46 South Carolina 89% 147% 22 90% 171% 33 91% 176% 29 90% 158% 21 90% 163% 27 South Dakota 90% 135% 9 90% 118% 8 90% 165% 28 90% 147% 11 88% 138% 21 Tennessee 86% 175% 45 87% 166% 40 87% 200% 47 87% 178% 47 86% 187% 47 Texas 92% 170% 20 92% 172% 17 92% 187% 26 92% 184% 23 92% 182% 28 Utah 94% 128% 2 93% 121% 2 94% 120% 2 94% 113% 1 93% 119% 1 Vermont 92% 114% 3 90% 103% 6 91% 111% 4 89% 125% 9 86% 94% 9 Virginia 88% 137% 17 88% 151% 30 88% 151% 30 88% 152% 28 90% 139% 14 Washington 88% 152% 29 88% 135% 24 89% 148% 20 89% 149% 25 89% 154% 25 West Virginia 90% 149% 13 93% 131% 3 92% 127% 6 91% 121% 4 91% 157% 18 Wisconsin 85% 116% 25 85% 109% 31 84% 117% 31 86% 111% 18 84% 118% 30 Wyoming 95% 100% 1 94% 127% 1 92% 101% 1 92% 138% 5 90% 103% 3
______ 26 | Page Appendix C: Resource Allocation Indicators
Table C 1. Early Childhood Education
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Low Income Ratio by Income Rank Total Low Income Ratio by Income Rank Total Low Income Ratio by Income Rank Total Low Income Ratio by Income Rank Total Low Income Ratio by Income Rank Alabama 43% 33% 76% 42 46% 39% 85% 16 44% 34% 76% 43 43% 36% 82% 30 41% 35% 86% 28 Alaska 34% 30% 90% 11 41% 39% 96% 5 45% 40% 88% 18 38% 41% 108% 2 38% 40% 106% 3 Arizona 33% 23% 72% 47 34% 25% 73% 47 35% 28% 80% 37 34% 25% 74% 44 36% 27% 75% 49 Arkansas 51% 49% 96% 4 54% 51% 95% 6 47% 42% 91% 13 46% 43% 94% 8 50% 42% 84% 29 California 49% 41% 84% 25 50% 41% 83% 28 49% 39% 79% 38 50% 41% 83% 28 48% 40% 84% 33 Colorado 50% 40% 79% 34 49% 39% 81% 33 47% 35% 74% 47 48% 36% 76% 42 51% 42% 82% 37 Connecticut 61% 50% 82% 27 63% 46% 73% 46 63% 60% 96% 5 68% 61% 91% 12 62% 48% 77% 45 Delaware 51% 43% 85% 21 54% 42% 78% 38 53% 47% 88% 17 46% 42% 91% 11 43% 34% 78% 40 District of Columbia 56% 53% 95% 5 73% 57% 77% 40 73% 58% 79% 39 75% 73% 97% 6 78% 70% 89% 16 Florida 49% 39% 79% 32 51% 42% 84% 25 51% 44% 86% 22 51% 41% 82% 31 50% 42% 84% 32 Georgia 52% 42% 81% 29 49% 41% 84% 23 49% 40% 83% 31 50% 40% 80% 35 48% 39% 81% 38 Hawaii 58% 54% 94% 7 56% 45% 81% 34 48% 44% 92% 12 50% 53% 107% 3 54% 54% 101% 5 Idaho 30% 26% 87% 18 43% 36% 84% 21 33% 34% 102% 2 34% 23% 68% 48 29% 25% 83% 35 Illinois 56% 49% 88% 14 55% 46% 84% 22 54% 43% 80% 35 54% 47% 89% 14 51% 45% 89% 13 Indiana 40% 29% 71% 48 40% 32% 80% 35 43% 37% 86% 23 39% 30% 78% 37 36% 31% 87% 25 Iowa 48% 38% 79% 35 47% 36% 77% 43 49% 47% 97% 4 49% 46% 94% 7 49% 47% 95% 7 Kansas 45% 35% 77% 40 50% 45% 90% 9 44% 37% 85% 24 46% 40% 88% 16 42% 35% 84% 30 Kentucky 44% 40% 91% 10 43% 35% 83% 30 40% 32% 79% 40 47% 41% 87% 18 42% 37% 87% 23 Louisiana 56% 49% 87% 16 52% 51% 99% 3 52% 50% 95% 8 52% 44% 86% 20 49% 44% 89% 14 Maine 43% 36% 84% 24 46% 32% 70% 50 40% 34% 84% 25 47% 38% 81% 34 45% 40% 88% 19 Maryland 51% 39% 77% 39 51% 40% 78% 39 49% 41% 84% 26 47% 29% 61% 51 47% 37% 78% 43 Massachusetts 62% 47% 76% 43 58% 46% 79% 36 61% 46% 75% 46 59% 46% 78% 38 59% 54% 92% 10 Michigan 48% 39% 81% 28 46% 38% 84% 24 53% 48% 90% 14 47% 41% 88% 15 46% 39% 84% 31 Minnesota 47% 41% 87% 15 46% 38% 83% 27 48% 40% 83% 29 47% 37% 79% 36 48% 42% 89% 18 Mississippi 52% 51% 99% 3 52% 52% 99% 2 56% 53% 95% 7 52% 53% 103% 5 47% 43% 91% 11 Missouri 43% 34% 79% 33 43% 34% 79% 37 47% 38% 81% 32 41% 33% 81% 32 44% 38% 86% 26 Montana 44% 44% 101% 2 42% 47% 111% 1 42% 40% 94% 11 35% 37% 107% 4 33% 33% 101% 4 Nebraska 49% 38% 79% 36 48% 40% 83% 29 47% 38% 80% 36 52% 48% 93% 10 38% 30% 78% 42 Nevada 31% 20% 64% 50 32% 25% 77% 41 31% 25% 81% 33 32% 21% 66% 49 32% 26% 83% 34 New Hampshire 51% 28% 55% 51 51% 42% 83% 31 53% 32% 61% 51 52% 33% 64% 50 59% 52% 88% 21 New Jersey 66% 59% 89% 12 63% 57% 90% 8 62% 55% 88% 20 65% 55% 84% 24 62% 57% 92% 9 New Mexico 42% 40% 95% 6 34% 30% 87% 13 40% 38% 95% 9 40% 34% 84% 23 37% 32% 87% 24 New York 57% 49% 86% 19 58% 51% 88% 12 58% 51% 87% 21 59% 51% 86% 19 56% 49% 88% 22 North Carolina 46% 34% 74% 45 42% 29% 70% 49 43% 33% 75% 44 43% 34% 77% 39 44% 34% 76% 47 North Dakota 32% 23% 73% 46 31% 28% 93% 7 36% 42% 115% 1 41% 36% 88% 17 39% 37% 95% 6 Ohio 47% 40% 84% 22 44% 38% 85% 18 47% 39% 83% 30 46% 37% 81% 33 46% 41% 88% 20 Oklahoma 41% 37% 91% 8 46% 41% 89% 10 44% 42% 96% 6 41% 37% 90% 13 39% 35% 90% 12 Oregon 44% 36% 80% 30 41% 31% 75% 44 39% 26% 67% 49 42% 32% 76% 41 41% 34% 83% 36 Pennsylvania 49% 41% 83% 26 49% 42% 86% 15 47% 36% 76% 42 50% 37% 73% 45 46% 36% 78% 41 Rhode Island 50% 39% 78% 37 44% 38% 85% 17 53% 47% 88% 19 48% 40% 84% 25 44% 42% 94% 8 South Carolina 52% 41% 80% 31 52% 42% 82% 32 45% 38% 84% 28 43% 36% 82% 29 42% 37% 89% 17 South Dakota 36% 31% 87% 17 39% 33% 87% 14 40% 39% 99% 3 38% 44% 116% 1 37% 26% 72% 50 Tennessee 41% 35% 86% 20 41% 35% 84% 19 39% 33% 84% 27 43% 35% 83% 26 38% 31% 80% 39 Texas 44% 37% 84% 23 43% 36% 83% 26 41% 33% 80% 34 44% 36% 83% 27 41% 35% 86% 27 Utah 40% 31% 77% 41 41% 31% 75% 45 38% 26% 69% 48 39% 30% 75% 43 42% 32% 75% 48 Vermont 54% 56% 103% 1 49% 48% 98% 4 61% 39% 63% 50 43% 33% 77% 40 54% 41% 77% 46 Virginia 50% 37% 74% 44 48% 35% 72% 48 49% 39% 78% 41 48% 34% 70% 47 45% 35% 77% 44 Washington 43% 33% 78% 38 39% 24% 62% 51 44% 33% 75% 45 41% 29% 72% 46 38% 26% 68% 51 West Virginia 35% 31% 88% 13 33% 28% 84% 20 37% 33% 90% 15 36% 31% 85% 22 37% 40% 107% 2 Wisconsin 48% 43% 91% 9 42% 37% 88% 11 41% 37% 89% 16 47% 44% 93% 9 45% 40% 89% 15 Wyoming 47% 33% 70% 49 34% 26% 77% 42 39% 37% 94% 10 60% 51% 85% 21 43% 53% 123% 1
______ 27 | Page Table C 2. Wage Competitiveness
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Wage Ratio at 25 Ratio at 45 Ratio at 25 Ratio at 45 Ratio at 25 Ratio at 45 Ratio at 25 Ratio at 45 Ratio at 25 Ratio at 45 Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Alabama 86% 75% 24 83% 72% 33 82% 71% 35 82% 71% 33 80% 69% 33 Alaska 84% 79% 20 79% 75% 35 83% 78% 17 91% 85% 3 83% 78% 14 Arizona 80% 68% 44 76% 65% 50 79% 67% 46 73% 62% 50 71% 60% 50 Arkansas 87% 75% 25 89% 76% 22 88% 75% 14 87% 74% 16 88% 75% 12 California 85% 77% 23 87% 79% 17 83% 76% 24 82% 75% 24 79% 72% 28 Colorado 74% 67% 50 75% 69% 48 75% 68% 48 75% 68% 45 67% 61% 51 Connecticut 76% 71% 45 78% 73% 40 78% 73% 37 76% 71% 39 79% 73% 26 Delaware 90% 80% 9 81% 72% 37 86% 77% 13 84% 75% 18 78% 69% 34 District of Columbia 72% 62% 51 77% 66% 49 80% 69% 44 78% 68% 42 74% 64% 47 Florida 83% 77% 26 82% 76% 30 78% 73% 36 79% 73% 32 78% 72% 30 Georgia 76% 70% 47 78% 72% 45 75% 69% 47 74% 68% 46 71% 66% 48 Hawaii 88% 81% 11 89% 82% 7 94% 87% 3 84% 77% 15 78% 73% 27 Idaho 91% 79% 10 87% 75% 27 86% 74% 21 83% 72% 28 89% 77% 9 Illinois 85% 73% 31 87% 75% 25 84% 72% 32 85% 73% 23 83% 71% 24 Indiana 88% 76% 21 89% 76% 19 87% 74% 19 82% 70% 35 84% 71% 22 Iowa 92% 75% 14 96% 78% 5 102% 83% 1 105% 85% 2 95% 77% 7 Kansas 85% 75% 28 82% 72% 34 86% 75% 18 80% 70% 37 78% 68% 37 Kentucky 85% 74% 29 87% 75% 26 84% 73% 30 82% 71% 30 83% 72% 23 Louisiana 82% 74% 34 86% 77% 24 83% 74% 29 84% 75% 22 79% 71% 31 Maine 88% 83% 8 84% 79% 23 92% 87% 4 86% 81% 8 84% 79% 11 Maryland 86% 77% 22 87% 79% 18 84% 76% 22 84% 75% 19 82% 73% 21 Massachusetts 79% 70% 41 80% 71% 42 82% 73% 33 78% 69% 40 78% 69% 35 Michigan 93% 82% 6 95% 84% 4 92% 81% 8 88% 78% 9 86% 76% 13 Minnesota 81% 71% 38 81% 71% 41 85% 75% 20 80% 71% 36 80% 70% 32 Mississippi 87% 79% 16 83% 76% 29 83% 75% 25 80% 72% 34 75% 68% 41 Missouri 78% 71% 42 80% 73% 38 78% 71% 41 74% 68% 48 73% 67% 43 Montana 94% 84% 5 90% 80% 10 85% 75% 23 84% 74% 21 95% 84% 3 Nebraska 84% 73% 33 88% 77% 20 87% 76% 12 88% 77% 11 86% 75% 16 Nevada 82% 76% 30 86% 80% 16 82% 76% 28 88% 82% 5 80% 74% 20 New Hampshire 80% 72% 39 79% 71% 43 83% 75% 27 82% 73% 29 76% 69% 38 New Jersey 88% 78% 17 91% 81% 8 86% 77% 16 85% 76% 17 85% 76% 15 New Mexico 91% 78% 12 84% 72% 32 81% 70% 38 91% 78% 7 84% 72% 19 New York 86% 79% 19 89% 82% 9 85% 78% 11 88% 81% 6 83% 77% 17 North Carolina 81% 73% 36 83% 75% 31 77% 69% 45 75% 67% 47 73% 65% 44 North Dakota 102% 82% 4 101% 81% 3 97% 78% 7 87% 70% 26 101% 81% 1 Ohio 89% 77% 15 91% 79% 11 89% 77% 10 87% 75% 14 85% 73% 18 Oklahoma 82% 71% 37 83% 72% 36 83% 72% 34 78% 67% 43 74% 64% 45 Oregon 87% 79% 18 84% 76% 28 83% 75% 26 84% 75% 20 79% 71% 29 Pennsylvania 92% 80% 7 92% 80% 6 93% 81% 6 93% 80% 4 93% 81% 6 Rhode Island 95% 89% 3 93% 88% 2 91% 85% 5 84% 78% 13 85% 79% 10 South Carolina 86% 75% 27 88% 77% 21 87% 76% 15 84% 73% 25 83% 72% 25 South Dakota 84% 67% 40 95% 75% 12 84% 66% 40 86% 68% 31 100% 79% 4 Tennessee 79% 69% 43 80% 70% 44 80% 70% 42 75% 66% 49 77% 67% 40 Texas 76% 68% 48 78% 70% 46 79% 70% 43 77% 69% 41 76% 67% 42 Utah 81% 75% 32 78% 73% 39 77% 72% 39 76% 71% 38 75% 69% 39 Vermont 95% 89% 2 86% 81% 14 80% 75% 31 80% 75% 27 91% 85% 5 Virginia 76% 67% 49 74% 65% 51 72% 63% 51 71% 63% 51 72% 63% 49 Washington 77% 70% 46 76% 70% 47 73% 66% 50 75% 69% 44 72% 66% 46 West Virginia 83% 73% 35 89% 78% 15 75% 66% 49 88% 77% 10 78% 68% 36 Wisconsin 89% 78% 13 90% 78% 13 92% 80% 9 87% 76% 12 89% 77% 8 Wyoming 111% 93% 1 101% 84% 1 100% 83% 2 114% 94% 1 99% 83% 2
______ 28 | Page Table C 3. Teacher to Student Ratios
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers Teachers per 100 Staffing per 100 Staffing per 100 Staffing per 100 Staffing per 100 Staffing students Fairness students Fairness students Fairness students Fairness students Fairness Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Alabama 6.7 91% 47 6.6 96% 43 7.0 95% 43 6.6 98% 39 7.3 98% 39 Alaska 5.8 150% 3 6.0 90% 49 6.3 103% 32 6.0 105% 22 5.6 113% 6 Arizona 5.5 103% 32 5.4 102% 34 5.2 103% 31 5.4 100% 32 5.2 102% 29 Arkansas 6.8 119% 10 7.0 114% 10 6.5 114% 6 6.5 112% 9 6.4 112% 8 California 4.7 106% 27 4.5 106% 24 4.2 104% 29 4.4 99% 34 4.3 99% 35 Colorado 5.9 105% 29 5.8 109% 19 5.7 108% 17 5.6 107% 19 5.6 111% 12 Connecticut 8.4 104% 30 7.7 98% 39 7.8 97% 40 8.0 96% 44 8.2 93% 48 Delaware 6.5 115% 12 6.9 104% 27 6.8 101% 35 6.9 99% 36 6.9 112% 10 District of Columbia 8.6 91% 46 9.7 96% 43 9.3 95% 46 8.4 98% 40 8.0 98% 42 Florida 7.2 98% 41 7.3 91% 47 6.9 93% 47 7.0 92% 47 6.9 92% 49 Georgia 7.3 101% 40 7.0 103% 29 6.7 107% 23 6.8 103% 27 6.5 104% 24 Hawaii 6.5 91% 47 6.5 96% 45 6.6 95% 43 6.5 98% 40 6.5 98% 40 Idaho 5.3 110% 19 5.4 108% 20 5.6 107% 19 5.5 109% 15 5.2 107% 19 Illinois 6.4 84% 50 6.4 97% 42 6.4 95% 42 6.4 93% 46 7.1 98% 40 Indiana 5.6 126% 5 5.5 123% 4 5.2 120% 4 5.8 113% 8 5.5 123% 4 Iowa 6.8 114% 15 6.8 106% 25 6.5 110% 11 6.6 107% 18 6.7 105% 23 Kansas 7.0 111% 18 6.9 102% 32 6.8 107% 21 7.3 100% 33 7.3 105% 21 Kentucky 6.3 110% 22 6.2 111% 13 6.0 109% 14 6.1 104% 25 6.2 104% 26 Louisiana 7.5 94% 45 7.7 84% 50 7.1 100% 37 7.1 103% 29 7.0 93% 47 Maine 7.7 103% 35 8.0 100% 37 7.6 106% 24 7.6 96% 43 7.7 101% 30 Maryland 7.2 106% 28 7.1 103% 30 7.1 103% 30 7.1 99% 38 7.1 94% 45 Massachusetts 7.2 114% 14 7.2 114% 9 7.2 111% 9 7.3 113% 7 7.4 111% 11 Michigan 5.4 108% 24 5.4 107% 21 5.3 109% 12 5.3 110% 11 5.4 108% 17 Minnesota 6.0 121% 6 5.9 121% 5 6.0 124% 2 6.0 124% 3 6.0 126% 3 Mississippi 6.7 102% 37 6.7 101% 36 6.5 103% 33 6.5 102% 30 6.8 98% 38 Missouri 6.8 112% 17 6.8 111% 14 6.8 104% 28 6.8 104% 26 6.9 97% 43 Montana 6.0 120% 7 6.2 112% 12 6.1 112% 8 6.0 110% 10 6.0 112% 9 Nebraska 6.8 120% 8 6.8 113% 11 6.9 111% 10 6.9 106% 20 6.8 102% 28 Nevada 5.6 66% 51 6.0 68% 51 6.0 65% 51 5.8 70% 51 5.5 71% 51 New Hampshire 7.4 153% 1 7.4 140% 2 7.7 108% 16 7.3 127% 2 7.4 128% 2 New Jersey 8.1 114% 13 8.1 111% 15 7.6 96% 41 8.2 108% 17 8.3 108% 18 New Mexico 6.8 103% 33 6.7 103% 31 6.5 105% 25 6.4 104% 24 6.4 107% 20 New York 7.9 104% 31 8.1 106% 26 8.0 101% 34 8.1 100% 31 8.0 99% 33 North Carolina 6.9 101% 38 6.5 107% 23 6.5 109% 13 6.5 104% 23 6.5 104% 25 North Dakota 7.2 151% 2 7.2 141% 1 7.4 140% 1 7.4 150% 1 7.4 143% 1 Ohio 5.7 113% 16 5.7 115% 8 5.7 114% 7 5.7 115% 6 5.6 113% 7 Oklahoma 6.0 109% 23 6.0 110% 18 5.8 107% 20 5.8 108% 16 5.8 108% 16 Oregon 5.2 103% 34 5.0 103% 28 4.8 107% 22 4.7 99% 35 4.5 108% 15 Pennsylvania 7.0 98% 43 7.1 101% 35 7.2 98% 38 7.1 95% 45 7.0 94% 46 Rhode Island 8.0 91% 49 8.1 90% 48 8.2 90% 49 8.5 88% 50 7.4 86% 50 South Carolina 6.6 101% 39 6.6 98% 40 6.4 100% 36 6.4 105% 21 6.7 100% 31 South Dakota 6.4 116% 11 6.6 121% 6 6.6 121% 3 6.4 121% 4 5.8 111% 13 Tennessee 6.7 102% 36 6.8 102% 33 6.7 104% 27 6.7 103% 28 6.8 102% 27 Texas 7.0 98% 44 7.0 98% 41 7.0 97% 39 6.7 99% 37 6.7 99% 34 Utah 4.2 120% 9 4.3 111% 16 4.4 115% 5 4.3 118% 5 4.3 121% 5 Vermont 7.7 107% 25 7.4 98% 38 7.6 90% 50 7.5 91% 48 7.4 98% 37 Virginia 5.9 110% 21 5.8 116% 7 5.8 107% 18 7.5 97% 42 7.4 100% 32 Washington 5.2 110% 20 5.1 110% 17 5.2 109% 15 5.1 109% 13 5.1 110% 14 West Virginia 7.0 107% 26 7.0 107% 22 7.1 105% 26 7.0 109% 14 7.1 105% 22 Wisconsin 6.7 98% 42 6.6 95% 46 6.6 91% 48 6.5 90% 49 6.6 94% 44 Wyoming 7.8 134% 4 7.5 130% 3 7.0 95% 43 7.9 110% 12 8.0 98% 36
______ 29 | Page
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes
Meeting Summary as Approved by Commission Members
Tuesday, September 21, 2016 12:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m. § Illinois State Board of Education, Videoconference Room (3rd Floor), 100 N. First St., Springfield, Illinois § Illinois State Board of Education, Videoconference Room (14th Floor), 100 W. Randolph, Suite 14-300, Chicago, Illinois
Attendees
Commission Members
Chicago Jason Barickman, Rita Mayfield, Bob Pritchard, Senator, 53rd District Representative, Representative, Daniel Biss, 60th District 70th District Senator, 9th District Emily McAsey, Sue Rezin, Fred Crespo, Representative, Senator, 38th District Representative, 85th District Christine Winger, 44th District Dan McConchie Representative, Sheri Jesiel, Senator, 26th District 45th District Representative, Karen McConnaughay 61st District Senator, 33rd District Springfield Avery Bourne, Dwight Kay, Evelyn Sanguinetti, Representative, Representative, Lieutenant Governor 95th District 112th District Jodi Scott, Jennifer Hammer, Andy Manar, Regional Superintendent of Chief of Staff for Policy, Senator, 48th District Schools for Henderson, Office of the Governor Beth Purvis (Chairperson), Knox, Mercer, and Warren Secretary of Education Counties
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—1 7573_09/16
Call-In Participants James Dimas, Kimberly Lightford, James T. Meeks, Secretary, Department of Senator, 4th District ISBE Chairman Human Services
Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) Staff Amanda Elliott, Sarah Hartwick, Tony Smith, Legislative Affairs Legislative Affairs State Superintendent of Jason Hall, Leticia Pickens, Education Division Administrator, Policy Analyst, State Robert Wolfe, State Funding and Funding and Forecasting Chief Financial Officer Forecasting
Midwest Comprehensive Center (MWCC) Staff Jeremy Rasmussen
Presenters
Robert Wolfe, Illinois State Board of Education
Jessica Handy, Stand for Children
Mike Jacoby, Executive Director of the Illinois Association of School Business Officials
Meeting Objectives § Understand what is meant by hold harmless. § Understand funding distribution models.
Opening
Chairman Meeks called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. Twenty-one members were in attendance, and a quorum was present.
Chairman Meeks started the meeting by thanking the commission members for their great work so far.
Dr. Purvis said the last meeting was a conceptual conversation on adequacy and equity and now the commission will be diving into things that look at issues critical to the understanding of crafting a new funding formula, which include different interpretations of hold harmless and how
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—2 the distribution of funds works. She said the next conversation they have will be focused on property taxes and how they affect funding.
Motion to approve minutes: Representative Pritchard.
Presentations
Hold Harmless (Presentation by Robert Wolfe)
Robert Wolfe began by providing a general definition of hold harmless and said that hold harmless provisions are meant to restrict declines in revenues, while others limit revenue increases. He said that under the current Illinois state aid formula, there are two examples of this: § State aid is based on the greater of the three-year average daily attendance or the current year’s best three months average daily attendance. § The three-year average Department of Human Services population for the calculation of the supplemental low-income grant
Wolfe said that these examples are both built-in hold harmless provisions within the general state aid formula. He said that hold harmless provisions provide stability to districts while the new funding formula is implemented. He also said that hold harmless provisions can help perpetuate past distributions.
Wolfe then gave a short history of the various hold harmless provisions in Illinois. In 1999–2010, there were four specific hold harmless provisions. The general state aid formula, which went into effect in 1999, stated that no district would receive any less state aid than it did in 1998 and had no sunset provision. Another hold harmless provision was the supplemental general state aid grant, which compared the base year with 2003 and had a 2007 sunset provision that was extended through the budget implementation bill.
Wolfe then gave an example of a hold harmless provision that went through multiple iterations. The example he provided was the special education provision, which provided funding for children requiring special education services. It was effective in fiscal year (FY) 2005 and had a base year of 2004. It also had a 2007 sunset provision, but it was reinstated in 2008, with 2007 as the base year. The last hold harmless provision Wolfe discussed was a line item on the Illinois State Board of Education budget called transitional assistance. It was effective in 2004 and had a base year of 2003. It guaranteed that no district would receive less total funding from state distributions in the current year when compared with the prior year. It was eliminated in 2010.
Wolfe said the takeaway of these four hold harmless provisions is that they all went on for a certain period and that there are districts that fall in and out of hold harmless because of demographic changes, economic development, or economic decline. He said that 2017 aid was comparable with 2016 gross general state aid at the $6,119 foundation level. He said that 713 of the 922 entities receiving general state aid in FY 2017 had a gross amount that was less than the gross amount for FY 2016 general state aid. He said assuming 2016 as a base amount, approximately $307.9 million would be needed to fund a hold harmless that guaranteed no district would have received less in 2017 than it received in 2016. He said assuming 2016 per-
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—3 pupil amount received as a base amount, approximately $263 million would be needed to fund a hold harmless that guaranteed no district would have received, on a per-pupil basis, less in 2017 than it received, on a per-pupil basis, in 2016.
Wolfe said it’s important to understand the factors that contribute to general state aide loss. He listed a number of things that could lead to loss of general state aid from one year to the next, including: § Increase in the equalized assessed valuation (EAV) used in the calculation of general state aid; § Increase in personal property replacement tax receipts; § Decrease in average daily attendance; § Low-income changes; § Decrease in Department of Human Services Population; and § Decrease in the concentration level of Department of Human Services Population.
Some other factors Wolfe mentioned include: § Decrease in gross income; § Increase in property tax; § Increase in Average Daily Attendance; and § Increase in low income.
Senator Barickman asked if these numbers account for the supplemental poverty grant that legislators allocated in FY 2017.
Wolfe said no, these numbers do not account for that.
Senator Barickman said that districts would have received additional dollars on top of their general state aid claim that would skew the number who received less from one year to the other.
Wolfe said that is correct.
Representative Mayfield said Wolfe had mentioned that only the special education funding was still not being funded. She said it hasn’t been funded for a few years, which is why there has been so much pushback from the districts concerning the charters because we are not funding it. If we are taking about hold harmless, we need to talk about that line item as well.
Wolfe said he does not have the history on that, but he could try to retrieve it.
Dr. Purvis said this question could be followed up on in the next meeting.
Senator Rezin said she had a question regarding the two different definitions of hold harmless.
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—4 She asked if Wolfe if he could explain the pros or cons of either of them.
Wolfe said if you are talking about general districts, hold harmless prevents districts that receive less funding as a result of change from going below standard. One of the things we talk about is who are we holding harmless. With hold harmless, there are two sides to the equation and because we still have the same players sitting at the table, there is a direct effect on both parties. He said another participant in the state at this table is the state and the cost of available revenue at the time. In terms of pros and cons, it is really about perspective.
Representative Pritchard asked, when we talk hold harmless, are we talking about districts or hold harmless per student?
Wolfe said that in this context, we are talking about districts.
Representative Pritchard then asked if there is any research that says what the hold harmless period should be.
Wolfe said he didn’t know if there is any research. He said that is a policy decision and there are variations.
Dr. Purvis said the other thing about hold harmless is that we have different funding streams, and we need to determine if the hold harmless is affecting the spending at the district level because it may or may not. So the question becomes, what is the local ability to make up for some of these?
Representative Crespo asked, when you look at the hold harmless and you establish a baseline, do you adjust for inflation?
Wolfe said there was no adjustment for inflation.
Wolfe said if a new funding formula is considered with no additional revenue, then there are going to be winners and losers.
Some other factors Wolfe said could result in the loss of general state aid were: § Decrease in gross income; § Increase in EAV; § Increase in property tax; § Decrease in ADA (average daily attendance); and § Decrease in low income.
Wolfe said if you look at the average daily attendance [referring to data on slide], this is a district serving K–12 that lost 10 students. These 10 students were probably dispersed throughout the grade span. He said it would be impossible for 10 fewer students—in this case—to result in a reduced class size because there would be no opportunity for the district to save on costs. You have to have a large student decline that would result in the elimination of a few classrooms,
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—5 which would reduce your costs. If you hold districts harmless per pupil amount, then that would account for the loss of students. You will not be paying for hold harmless for students who no longer exist. What you will be paying for is changes in payments to the districts because they have more revenue.
Wolfe said that is exactly right, as the demographics and the district becomes more wealthy, the cost to the state becomes less.
A committee member from Springfield asked if the list on what lead to loss in general state aid is exhaustive. She said she thought she heard earlier that fewer kids living in poverty was not part of what led to general losses in state aid.
Wolfe said these are the factors that contribute to the losses in general state aid only, but there could be additional things going forward as the formula is implemented that could create additional losses.
Wolfe then went on to some additional factors to consider in a singular education funding formula that could create the need for hold harmless: § If a greater amount of state funding is equalized or § If districts have a disproportionate amount of reliance on a particular categorical reimbursement.
Dr. Purvis added that transportation is something that has a disproportionate effect depending on the district.
Wolfe then went some additional factors that could result in a district being held harmless: § Loss of students; § Changes in low-income counts; § A hold harmless provision for districts that have high tax burden; § A period of time for which hold harmless provisions are in place; and § Districts having no loss in local receipts.
Wolfe then reviewed the impact of hold harmless provisions, listed as: § Provides districts with a level of predictability and stability; § A phased-in hold harmless provision will allow time for planning for districts that would receive more or less in a revised state education funding system; § An understanding that hold harmless provisions are a diversion of the amount of available funding from the intended goals of a revised state funding system for education funding; and § Hold harmless provisions should be reviewed to ensure that horizontal equity and vertical equity do not become inequitable.
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—6 A committee member [Springfield] said that Wolfe mentioned categorical reimbursements and joint agreement and cooperatives being left out and was wondering if that would be an argument against sharing services and consolidation.
Wolfe said no, he did not believe so and gave an example for his reasoning.
Representative McAsey asked if there have been other states that have recently looked at changing their funding formulas, and what have they have done concerning implementation of hold harmless.
Dr. Purvis brought up an analysis that looked at states and hold harmless. She said it will be sent out as part of the readings.
Representative McAsey brought up an earlier point from Wolfe on how hold harmless delays the implementation of the formula change. She asked, does that assume that there is no additional funding coming in?
Wolfe said you could say that, but even with additional money it can still take longer to achieve your goal.
Representative McAsey asked, is there a benefit to not having a sunset to ensure that your funding never falls below a certain minimum level?
Wolfe said it would depend upon how you define what that minimum level is.
Understanding Funding Distributions Models (Presentation by Jessica Handy and Mike Jacoby)
Jessica Handy said defining adequacy and equity are important conceptual guiding principles, but unless we have $3 to $5 billion more to invest in education next year, it won’t happen immediately. She said this committee will need to make choices on what factors to take into consideration when deciding how to give out funds. So, it’s important to ask, how do we distribute the limited resources we have and any new revenue that becomes available? And what types of hold harmless are reasonable to transition to the new formula?
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—7 Handy then gave some background on how the current school funding system works, which includes: • TRS is not based on student need or local ability to pay (TRS, including normal costs and unfunded liability, is about 35% of PK–12 budget). • Categoricals include about 20 different programs that are mostly based on student need, but not local ability to pay (categoricals are about 20% of the PK–12 budget). • GSA foundation level formula is based on local ability to pay but not student need (GSA is 30% of the PK–12 budget). • Low income GSA is based on student need, but not local ability to pay (low income is 15% of the PK–12 budget). Handy said general state aid is driven by a foundation level. She said there is no magic or logic to the foundation level. As your percentage of local resources increases, the amount of state aid received decreases. She said a big question is, how do you calculate local resources?
Handy then talked about the PTELL adjustment. She said that (1) tax caps prevent districts from levying more than they did last year plus inflation and (2) the formula is used to apply the assumed tax rate to all EAV, regardless of how much a district couldn’t access. She said the PTELL adjustment helps adjust for both of these items.
Handy then talked more about low-income concentration grants. She said that they are part of the GSA formula but calculated independently of foundation level. She said the grant provides between $355 and $3,000 per pupil, depending on low-income concentration.
Handy then talked about categoricals. She said mandated categoricals include five special education lines, which are transportation, orphanage tuition, and free breakfast and lunch. Other categoricals include bilingual education, early childhood, agricultural education, career and technical education, Advanced Placement class subsidies, and consolidation incentive payments. She said that each one of these has a different distribution method and that CPS gets most of its categorical funding through flexible block grants based on 1995 distribution percentages.
Representative Crespo asked how much were the Chicago block grants?
Handy said she believes it is about $586 million, approximately $250 million more than if they had to submit claims.
Representative Crespo asked, what is special education defined as?
Handy said that special personnel reimbursement is driven by certified special ed teachers. The special ed funding for children is based on 85% enrollment in the school and 15% on poverty.
Handy then touched upon the teachers’ retirement system. She said that there is a 3.5 billion state payment for teacher pensions for all districts except CPS and that $800 million is the normal cost and that $3 billion is unfunded liability.
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—8 A committee member [Springfield] asked if there are any examples of states that incorporate teacher pension cost into their funding model.
Handy said that a lot of states have districts paying for pensions locally and that’s how it would be incorporated.
Another committee member [Springfield] asked if those same states are the ones that don’t have a state teacher retirement system and if the local boards are determining what those pensions are.
Handy said no.
Representative McAsey asked, how did you arrive at the number $3 to $5 billion for the additional investment?
Handy said EFAB has said you need about $5 billion more to reach the optimal foundation level for the current system.
Senator Barickman said it is important to think about how we determine what is available locally. He said that factors in greatly to what the additional investment number would be.
Handy then talked about Senate Bill (SB) 231 (Better Funding for Better Schools) and what the funding model would like under it: § TRS would not be based on student need or local ability to pay. § Catergoricals would mostly be based on student need but not local ability to pay. § Primary state aid (PSA) would be based on student need and local ability to pay. § Hold harmless would not be based on student needs or local ability to pay.
Handy added that SB 231, instead of having multiple complex, competing formulas distributing money to schools, would centralize most of it into one formula: primary state aid. She said every district would be assigned a weighted foundation level that reflects its poverty rate and concentration, which would be based on applying weights to a foundation level that would increase or decrease based on the appropriation. She said the PSA provides equalization grants to districts reflecting how many resources they have locally and what they need to educate their specific population of students.
Handy said that SB 231 drives new money toward the highest poverty districts and that the final version includes three versions of hold harmless.
A committee member asked, how are regional cost differences determined?
Senator Manar said there is a wage index that you build up from.
Mike Jacoby said that the evidence-based model (EBM) has two parts: a way to define adequacy and a way to distribute dollars. He said that, like SB 231, EBM is an integrated formula. Every district has a unique adequacy target calculated, and most state education funds are integrated
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—9 into one formula. He said the distribution side is separate from the adequacy calculation. Based on the equalized assessed valuation in the district, the model estimates the local capacity a district has to contribute to its schools. He said that every district is guaranteed its base funding minimum, which is a per-pupil hold harmless.
Jacoby asked, how do we take the gap between what every district needs in order to fund adequacy and what they already have? He said some of those gaps are going to be large. To address this, EBM has four tiers: § Tier 1—Districts are funded at less than 60% of their adequacy target. These districts will get 33% of all new money. § Tier 2—Districts are funded at less than 90% of their adequacy target, including Tier 1 districts. These districts will get 66% of all new money. § Tier 3—Districts are funded between 90% and 100% of adequacy. They will get 0.9% of new money. § Tier 4—Districts are funded above adequacy. They will get 0.1% of new money.
Senator Manar said one of the challenges with the winners and losers discussion is that we also want to be able to balance not having only the poorest districts being advocates for the money.
Jacoby said, for those who are in Tier 3 and Tier 4, the one thing they say repeatedly is just don’t take anything away from us.
Representative Crespo asked, conceivably, we could go back to this hold harmless five or four years from now?
Jacoby said yes and that you would probably want to. You don’t want to put something in place and never look at it again.
Senator McConnaughay said there are two different EAV systems in Illinois; how do you deal with that?
Jacoby said we didn’t do anything with assessment side of EAV.
Handy then went over what a combination of SB 231 and EBM might look like. She said implementing 231 before implementing EBM would have the effect of significantly raising the floor for the highest poverty districts before moving to the EBM. She said in the first year of EBM, districts would be held harmless to the higher funding level they received under the 231 model through their based funding minimum.
Representative Mayfield said her concern is that there is no new money.
Handy referred to a graph to illustrate what would happen if there was no new money.
Senator Barickman said in the three years we have been having this conversation, we all recognize the financial climate that we live in, but there has been decision after decision that has
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—10 increased the amount of state dollars into education funding. With every moment we don’t come to an agreement on this, those opportunities are lost. If everyone agrees that the formula is broken but we put more money into it, then we are all consciously upholding a flawed system.
Handy said that EBM would raise the amount every low-income student gets regardless of the concentration of low-income students in a district.
Handy said this year’s education budget took a step forward toward a more equitable system while also pausing many of the inputs at FY 2016 levels: § Every district received the same GSA allocation as FY 2016. § An equity grant was added that distributed $250 million in proportion to the FY 2016 poverty grant allocation. § Any district that would have received more if the FY 2017 model were fully funded would receive the additional amount needed to reach its FY 2017 GSA allocation.
Handy then talked about HB 813, which is a modified equity grant. She said this concept was raised as an oversimplified mechanism to direct new funds in the most equitable way. Although the poverty grant is equitable, it still has no measure of local wealth. The modified equity grant would have corrected that and incorporated local wealth and poverty rate.
Handy concluded with a list of considerations: § How will you calculate local wealth and treat tax caps? § Will you move to an integrated formula? § Should every district receive a minimum amount of state support? § How should a hold harmless be structured? § Should funding be based on enrollment, average daily attendance, or an average of several years of data? § Will you provide additional funds for poverty concentration? § Should new funds be narrowly targeted to raise the floor for the neediest districts, or should it be allocated more broadly?
The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Illinois State Board of Education Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—11 Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting 5 – October 5, 2016 9am – 12pm
ISBE Videoconference Rooms: 100 N. First St., 3rd Floor, Springfield 100 W. Randolph, Suite 14-300, Chicago
Join via webinar at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5208683825871216642
I. Welcome, Setting the Stage – Dr. Beth Purvis, Office of the Governor (15 min)
a. Welcome b. Summary from last meeting c. Approval of meeting minutes d. Agenda for the day
II. The Illinois Property Tax System and Its Implications for School Funding Issues (120 min)
III. Outstanding Questions and Items for Discussion (30 min)
IV. Wrap-Up – Dr. Beth Purvis, Office of the Governor (15 min)
A FUNDING FORMULA USING THE EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL
It is one thing to identify what we want for all students to experience in Illinois schools. It is another to determine how to allocate resources to support that expectation. Below is how the formula would be implemented in Illinois:
DISTRICT LOCAL BASE NET COMPARABLE ADEQUACY CAPACITY CPPRT FUNDING STATE WAGE INDEX X CONTRIBUTION ( TARGET )– TARGET – – MINIMUM =
District Adequacy Target: This is derived by applying Corporate Personal Property Replacement Tax local district student demographics to the Illinois Evidence- (CPPRT): This is considered local revenue as it is based on the Based Adequacy Model. corporate personal property tax the district received prior to the elimination of the personal property tax in 1979. For purposes of Comparable Wage Index (CWI): The CWI allows for a the funding formula, the prior year CPPRT distribution from the regional cost differentiation to be applied to the Adequacy Target Illinois Department of Revenue is utilized. of each district.13 The CWI was initially developed by the National Center for Educational Statistics and further updated by Dr. Lori Base Funding Minimum: One promise of Vision 20/20 Taylor at Texas A&M University. The range of the index in Illinois and the Evidence Based Formula is to not create “winners” and is from .85 to 1.20. “losers” in the development and implementation of a new funding formula. Therefore, under this model all districts would be Local Capacity Target (LCT): An Adequacy to EAV granted a Base Funding Guarantee and receive no less in state Ratio is used to determine the LCT for each district. Using this funds per pupil than was received in the prior fiscal year. State method all districts are compared equally based on unique revenues per pupil from the following funding sources would local capacity and the resources they need to fully implement comprise the Base Funding Guarantee: the Illinois Evidence-Based Adequacy Model. The steps in the • General State Aid • Special Ed Pupil (Child Funding) calculation of LCT are quite technical but in the end the average district in Illinois would provide 49% local funding allowing the • Bilingual or EL • Special Ed Summer School state to provide the difference. • Special Ed Personnel • Driver’s Education
In order to continually reflect student demographic changes, the original Base Funding Guarantee would be adjusted annually on a per pupil basis. Groups Attended 9/21/16 Commission Meeting, in person or via webinar Access Living of Metro Chicago Alexander Leigh Center for Autism Total number of groups in attendance with one or more representatives: 59 C & G Consulting Center Cass School District #66 Centralia HSD #200 Charleston School District Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Civic Committee Darien School District #61 ED-RED Elgin U-46 School District Glenwood Academy Governor's Office of Management and Budget (GOMB) Harrisburg School District #3 High School District Organization (HSDO) Hinshaw and Culbertson, LLP Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education (IAASE) Illinois Association of Private Special Education Centers (IAPSEC) Illinois Association of Rural and Small Schools (IARSS) Illinois Association of School Administrators (IASA) Illinois Association of School Board Officials (IASBO) Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB) Illinois Center for Autism Illinois Chamber of Commerce Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) Illinois Department of Juvenille Justices (IDJJ) Illinois Educators Association (IEA) Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT) Illinois Network of Charter Schools (INCS) Illinois Principals Association (IPA) Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) Indian Prairie School District Large Unit District Association (LUDA) Lee Enterprises Newspaper Legislative Education Network of DuPage County (LEND) Legislative staffers New Schools for Chicago NPR Illinois One Chance Illinois Orland School District #135 Ounce of Prevention Pana School District Parent Pontiac CCSD #429 Raise Your Hand Regional Office of Education #26 Schaumburg Township School District #54 South Cooperative Organization for Public Education (SCOPE) Spoon River Valley CUSD #4 Stricklin & Associates Taxpayers Federation Taylorville Community Unit School District #3 The Cove School The Menta Group University of Illinois - Springfield Vandalia CUSD #203 Voices for Children WTAX (News Radio) WTTW Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting 6 – October 19, 2016 12pm – 3pm
ISBE Videoconference Rooms: 100 N. First St., 3rd Floor, Springfield 100 W. Randolph, Suite 14-300, Chicago
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8337503591893859586
I. Welcome, Setting the Stage – Dr. Beth Purvis, Office of the Governor (15 min)
a. Welcome b. Summary from last meeting c. Approval of meeting minutes d. Agenda for the day
II. The Relationship between the Illinois Property Tax System and School Funding (90 min)
- Break - (10 min)
III. Outstanding Questions and Items for Discussion (50 min)
IV. Wrap-Up – Dr. Beth Purvis, Office of the Governor (15 min) J. Thomas (Tom) Johnson served as President of the Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois from April 1, 2006 until his retirement on December 31, 2013. He’s enjoying retirement and wrote a book “Fixing Illinois” with his good friend Jim Nowlan. He also does a little fiscal policy and some expert witness consulting to anyone that will listen.
Prior to joining the Federation, Mr. Johnson had served on the Board of Trustees of TFI and was a member of the Board of the Illinois Tax Foundation. Mr. Johnson was formerly the Partner in Charge of KPMG’s Chicago State and Local Tax Practice.
Governor Pat Quinn appointed Tom to chair the Taxpayer Action Board in 2009 which was charged with identifying cost and operating efficiencies in Illinois’ government programs. He served as a member of the Property Tax Reform and Relief Task Force created by the General Assembly in 2007.
Before Joining KPMG, Mr. Johnson served as the National Director of State and Local Taxes for Grant Thornton. Before entering public accounting, Mr. Johnson was the Director of Revenue for the State of Illinois from 1980 to 1987. He served as President of the National Association of Tax Administrators, now known as the Federation of Tax Administrators during his tenure as Illinois’ Revenue Director.
While Director, Mr. Johnson served on President Reagan’s Task Force on Worldwide Unitary Taxation which was charged to review its impact on foreign trade and relations. Mr. Johnson’s knowledge and experience makes him a specialist in all aspects of state and local taxes, and his involvement in legislative and administrative deliberations over the last 30 years makes him an expert in Illinois’ tax system.
Prior to his appointment at Revenue he was the Director of the Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs. This agency was responsible for overseeing the state’s administration of real and personal property taxation before the function was transferred to the Department of Revenue. The agency also provided financial, management, and community development assistance to Illinois’ 6500 units of local government.
He served as an original member and then Chairman of the Illinois Gaming Board from 1990 until 1999. The Board was responsible for the development of and enforcement of the regulatory framework for casino gaming operations in Illinois.
Prior to his state government services, he was first County Auditor and then the Administrative Aide to the County Board of DeKalb County, Illinois.
He was a regular speaker at numerous state and national seminars and conferences. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Civic Federation of Chicago; Chairman of the Tax Committee of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce; a member of the Tax Committee of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce; a member of the Director’s Advisory Board of Illinois Department of Revenue; and, the Regional Development Committee of the Metropolitan Planning Council.
He has served as a member of the Advisory Boards of the Georgetown University Law School’s State and Local Tax Institute, the National Institute on State and Local Taxation, and on the AICPA and Illinois CPA Society’s state and Local Tax Committees.
Mr. Johnson was born and raised in DeKalb County and has been a resident of Cook County most of his professional career. He received a BS degree in Accounting from Northern Illinois University. He is a Certified Public Accountant. Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois 68 • 6 n November/December 2015
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Who Does — and Doesn’t— Pay Corporate Notes from the inside ...... 2 Income Tax? Effective Property Tax Rates for 89 Illinois Communities...... 5 By Dr. Natalie Davila State Corporate Income Tax Apportionment Natalie Davila is an economist with an extensive background in public finance. She was Director Trends: Market-Based of Research for the Illinois Department of Revenue for 10 years. Sourcing, With or Without Statutory Authority ...... 10
TFI Spring Legislative In April 2014 the Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois and the Illinois State Conference...... 16 Chamber of Commerce published an extensive report on the characteristics of C-Corporations in Illinois.
The 2014 report concluded that for the period 2007-2011:
• On average one-third of Corporate Income Tax filers had an Illinois tax liability while two-thirds did not. • 95 percent of those C-corporations without a Corporate Income Tax liability had zero or negative Federal Taxable Income. • Illinois modifications to Federal Taxable Income play a very limited role
in explaining why firms do not have an Illinois Corporate Tax liability. CONTACT US: 430 East Vine Street, Suite A • The role of Illinois tax credits on Illinois tax liability was minimal. Springfield, IL 62703 V. 217.522.6818 F. 217.522.6823 This article adds to this knowledge by analyzing 2012 C-Corporation tax www.iltaxwatch.org [email protected] liability data by firm size. The first thing to note, in Table 1 , is that the number in 2012 of C-Corporations without a tax NOTES FROM THE INSIDE. . . liability is 64.5 percent – slightly below average By Carol S. Portman for the study period but significantly higher than As our Governor and state lawmakers plod in 2011. This can be largely explained by the towards aligning state revenues and spending, this changes in treatment of Net Operating Losses in edition of Tax Facts examines several key revenue Illinois. For tax year 2011, legislation was issues as part of TFI’s role of providing reliable enacted that suspended the use of NOLs. As the information to policy makers and the public. data below illustrates, this correlates with a significant increase in the number of firms with a Dr. Natalie Davila updates the piece she did almost two years ago examining corporations that don’t tax liability. For tax year 2012, in an attempt to pay Illinois income tax. Natalie finds that the help smaller businesses, firms were allowed to percentage of corporations without tax liability use up to $100,000 in Net Operating Losses, and increased in 2012, as corporations were allowed to the number of firms having no tax liability begin claiming a portion of their losses. Data not increased, although not to pre-suspension levels. included in the earlier study provides an interesting additional point: the larger a TABLE 1. Percent of C-Corporations Without a corporation, the more likely it is to have a tax Tax Liability, 2007-2012* liability . Year All All Total Percent of Going along with Natalie’s report, a trio of authors Returns Returns Returns C-Corps. with a with No with no from Grant Thornton has reprised a presentation Tax Tax Tax from TFI’s State and Local Tax Conference on Liability Liability Liability trends in apportionment of corporate income tax. 2012 38,612 70,102 108,714 64.48% This is a readable explanation of the move from 2011 44,115 65,120 109,236 59.61% cost-of-performance to market based sourcing that - even for non-tax geeks - illustrates the 2010 33,595 76,989 110,584 69.62% significance of apportionment in corporate 2009 33,000 77,990 110,990 70.27% taxation. 2008 37,255 78,904 116,159 67.93% 2007 39,291 79,082 118,373 66.81% Finally, we have completed the latest update of the TFI effective property tax rate study in which we Average 37,568 74,650 112,219 66.48% calculate the taxes paid on a hypothetical $250,000 *Note that 2010 and 2011 data have been updated since our home in 89 cities across Illinois. The study again original report was published finds Chicago (which benefits from the Cook County classification system and a significant Firm size for purposes of this analysis is commercial property tax base) with the lowest measured by total US gross receipts, or sales, for effective tax rate. However, Chicago is no longer most companies because this is the measure joined at the bottom by other Cook County Illinois uses to calculate what portion of total communities, which have seen their effective tax profits are apportioned to Illinois and taxed rates rise. here.
2 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015 TABLE 2. C-Corporations by Sales, Tax Year 2012
Sales Amount Number of Number with Percent with Average Tax Total Tax Firms Liability Liability Liability ($) Liability ($) Firms with Sales Reported Greater than $1 billion 1,914 1,368 71.5% 877,410 1,679,362,160 $500 million - $1 Billion 1,062 681 64.1% 131,396 139,542,170 $100 - $500 Million 3,880 2,310 59.5% 50,458 195,777,007 $50 - $100 Million 2,286 1,234 54.0% 21,059 48,140,618 $25 - $50 Million 2,782 1,406 50.5% 13,067 36,352,661 $10 - $25 Million 3,940 1,951 49.5% 9,775 38,513,128 $5 - $10 Million 2,830 1,324 46.8% 4,703 13,308,369 $0 - $5 Million 12,103 4,621 38.2% 2,255 27,286,513 Subtotal 30,797 14,895 48.4% 70,730 2,178,282,626 Taxpayers Without Sales Reported Illinois-Only Businesses 77,191 23,334 30.2% 1,392 107,437,307 Transportation Firms 726 383 52.8% 104,569 75,917,194 Subtotal 77,917 23,558 30.2% 2,353 183,354,501 Grand Total 108,714 38,612 35.52% 21,723 2,361,637,127
the trend illustrated in Table 4—the smaller the Table 2 illustrates that generally speaking the firm, the larger its Illinois apportionment factor.) larger the firm the greater the probability that Only 30.2% of these presumably small firms had they have a tax liability. More than 70 percent of Illinois tax liability in 2012. Also, firms in the firms with US sales of greater than $1 billion had transportation sector are listed separately tax liability in 2012, compared with 38.2 percent because they have special methods for of firms with sales of less than $5 million. calculating gross receipts that cannot be added to the basic sales measure used by firms in other It should be noted that there were 77,191 firms sectors. that made sales only in Illinois. Because of the way tax data is collected, no information is Table 3 on page 4 illustrates that 67.7 percent of available on the size of these Illinois-only firms the total tax liability in 2012 was generated by and therefore they are not included in the only 0.4 percent of all firms. On the other end of analysis by size information. An Illinois-only the spectrum, 26.1 percent of firms with a company, however, is unlikely to be very large, liability generated only 1.3 percent of total taxes. because its sales and activities are limited. (See
Tax Facts • November/December 2015 •3 However, the largest grouping is that 64.5 percent for firms with total sales of less than $5 percent of all firms with no tax liability. million. This is logical; the larger the firm, the Table 4 presents additional information on broader its business activities are likely to be and businesses by size. We can see that average the smaller its presence in Illinois, as a apportionment of sales to Illinois (percent of percentage of total activities. This also supports Illinois sales divided by total sales) varies from the theory that the Illinois-only firms, only 30.2% 2.4 percent for the very large firms to 29.2 of whom pay any corporate income tax, are likely to be quite small in TABLE 3. Size of Firm and Percent of Total Tax Liability terms of gross Number Percent Percent of receipts.* Liability of Average of Total Tax Tax Liability Amount Firms Liability Firms Liability Conclusion $1 Million and Above 1,598,150,394 405 $3,946,050 0.4% 67.7% The above analysis $500,000 - $1 Million 212,368,466 299 $710,262 0.3% 9.0% supports the $250,000 - $500,000 181,521,901 516 $351,787 0.5% 7.7% commonly held and $100,000 - $250,000 150,959,216 961 $157,086 0.9% 6.4% intuitive belief that in $50,000 - $100,000 77,244,211 1,079 $71,589 1.0% 3.3% absolute terms, on $25,000 - $50,000 49,439,377 1,382 $35,774 1.3% 2.1% average, the larger $10,000 - $25,000 40,197,033 2,533 $15,869 2.3% 1.7% the firm the more it $5,000 - $10,000 21,401,529 3,060 $6,994 2.8% 0.9% pays in CIT. Another, less intuitive but $1 - $5,000 30,355,000 28,377 $1,070 26.1% 1.3% equally indisputable, $0 70,102 64.5% 0% fact is that more of TABLE 4. Size of Firm and Relative Presence in Illinois the very large firms incur a tax Average Average liability compared with smaller Average Total Total Sales Apportionment firms. As a result, the percent Sales Amount Sales Everywhere Inside Illinois Factor of total CIT paid is heavily Greater than $1 Billion $12,048,311,841 $287,958,642 2.4% concentrated among firms $500 Million - $1 Billion $708,129,092 $39,304,186 5.5% with a tax liability of more $100 - $500 Million $233,292,684 $17,251,504 7.4% than $1 million. $50 - $100 Million $71,165,953 $7,713,404 10.8% $25 - $50 Million $35,631,844 $4,402,809 12.4% *We do not know anything about the Illinois-only firms, and so can $10 - $25 Million $16,266,214 $2,741,563 16.9% only speculate as to their size and $5 - $10 Million $7,231,633 $1,471,112 20.3% nature. Condominium and similar $0 - $5 Million $1,223,450 $358,244 29.3% home-owners associations may Subtotal $814,362,261 $23,022,113 2.8% constitute a sizeable portion of this group. $0 $70,102
4 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015 Effective Property Tax Rates for 89 Illinois Communities
By Mike Klemens
Mike Klemens, President of KDM Consulting Inc., does tax policy research for the Taxpayers’ Federation.
INTRODUCTION (Yes, there are townships within Chicago even if A home's effective property tax rate is the nobody knows which one they live in.) Using the percentage of the house’s value paid in property city-wide level, we calculated a 1.71 percent taxes for a given year. The Taxpayers’ Federation effective tax rate. Had we used township levels, of Illinois periodically calculates effective tax effective tax rates would have ranged from 1.48 rates for selected cities throughout Illinois. The percent for North Chicago Township to 2.36 for rates presented here are for 2013 property taxes Rogers Park Township. paid in 2014, the most recent data available. The intra-city data illustrates that use of averages The 89 communities studied are those that were masks a lot of differences, but the value of the included in our 2005, 2008 and 2010 studies. study – looking at identical communities over Earlier studies included just 60 cities. The time – remains valid. We added a column to the communities have been chosen for their size and table to show where the cities ranked in 2005 availability of data, with an eye towards and show how communities have moved in the providing an accurate representation of the rankings over this period that saw the collapse of entire state. market values of homes, particularly in the Chicago metropolitan area. For this effort we are assuming a home with a market value of $250,000 – the same market We assume the house is eligible for a homestead value used in the three previous studies. For exemption, but not eligible for the additional comparison purposes we used the same value senior citizens homestead exemption or for any home for each city, although we recognize that other kind of homestead exemption. In 101 housing values vary widely between cities or counties the homestead exemption was $6,000. even within a city. The General Homestead Exemption in Cook County was $7,000. The intra-city variation is evident in Chicago. We use the overall level of assessment for Triad 1 in METHODOLOGY Cook County, to calculate the assessment level in The calculation of an effective property tax rate Chicago. That makes sense because Triad 1 is for a community requires the following steps for Chicago. However, the sales ratio calculations a hypothetical house worth $250,000. present the data by township within the city. Tax Facts • November/December 2015 •5 Step 1 –Determine the Assessed Value (AV) cities, counties, townships, fire protection Obtain the adjusted median level of assessment districts, park districts, school districts, sanitary for residential property for the township in districts, airport authorities, and a host of other which the community is located from the Illinois governmental entities. Multiply it by the taxable Department of Revenue’s sales ratio studies and value. multiply times $250,000. For Chicago we use the median level for Triad 1. Step 5 –Calculate the Effective Tax Rate Divide the tax bill by the $250,000 fair market Step 2– Determine the property’s Equalized value of the home to find the effective tax rate. Assessed Value (EAV) Multiply the assessed value by the county’s FINDINGS “multiplier” (equalization factor) to determine Tax rates are rising. Effective tax rates rose an the property’s equalized assessed value. The average of 21 percent for the 89 selected cities Department of Revenue assigns a multiplier to between 2010 and 2013, offsetting declining each county to equalize assessments across the property values. state, bringing the median level of assessment to Chicago’s effective tax rate remains the lowest the required 33 1/3%. When assessments in a of the 89 selected cities in Illinois, due to the county are within 1% of the required level, they Cook County classification system that shifts tax do not need to be adjusted, and the county is burden off homeowners onto other properties. given a multiplier of 1. Classification appears to be doing less for Cook Step 3 – Determine the EAV after exemption County homeowners outside Chicago, as other (taxable value) Cook County cities moved up in the rankings Subtract the homestead exemption from the toward higher effective tax rates. For 2005 the EAV. In 2010 General Homestead Exemptions five lowest effective tax rates were in Cook were $6,000 outside of Cook County. For Cook, County; by 2013 only Chicago was in the five where the General Homestead Exemption was lowest. $7,000. Cook’s Adjusted General Homestead The study is not all good news for Chicago Exemption (the so called Seven Percent Solution) homeowners, whose effective tax rate rose had been largely wiped out by falling property faster than did other cities’. Chicago’s effective values and was only in effect for the South tax rate increased 34 percent since 2010, while Suburbs (Triad 3). the average for all 89 cities was only a 21 percent Step 4 – Figure the tax bill increase. Obtain the community’s aggregate tax rate from the Department of Revenue’s Annual Property Tax Statistics report. The aggregate tax rate is the sum of property tax rates calculated for
6 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015
2013
Value
3.56%
3.67%
3.70%
3.71%
3.80%
3.83%
3.95%
3.96%
4.01%
4.08%
4.14%
4.18%
4.21%
4.35%
4.47%
4.48%
4.62%
4.63%
4.65%
4.82%
4.85%
5.04%
5.14%
5.27%
5.31%
5.48%
6.17%
7.03%
7.24%
7.98%
Market
% % of Fair
Rate Rate as a
Effective Tax
a on
2013
Home
$8,892
$9,171
$9,240
$9,275
$9,504
$9,575
$9,863
$9,902
Bill Tax
$10,037
$10,210
$10,345
$10,453
$10,515
$10,864
$11,176
$11,188
$11,558
$11,565
$11,624
$12,060
$12,113
$12,612
$12,861
$13,165
$13,280
$13,705
$15,426
$17,575
$18,112
$19,944
$250,000
(%)
9.991
11.080
12.716
12.882
10.840
11.261
10.753
10.763
10.942
11.959
11.987
11.576
11.270
12.585
15.522
11.609
13.491
12.303
12.905
12.446
12.990
14.842
17.863
14.002
16.922
14.909
21.425
24.411
18.026
19.510
Rate Tax
Value
Taxable
$89,000
$82,775
$72,663
$71,998
$87,675
$85,025
$91,725
$92,000
$91,725
$85,375
$86,300
$90,300
$93,300
$86,325
$71,998
$96,375
$85,675
$94,000
$90,075
$96,900
$93,250
$84,975
$71,998
$94,025
$78,475
$91,925
$71,998
$71,998
$100,476
$102,225
6,000
7,000
7,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
7,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
7,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
7,000
7,000
6,000
$6,000
$6,000
Exemption
Homestead
1.0000
1.0000
2.6621
2.6621
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
2.6621
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
2.6621
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
2.6621
2.6621
1.0300
1.0000
Multiplier
Level
38.00
35.51
11.97
11.87
37.47
36.41
39.09
39.20
39.09
36.55
36.92
38.52
39.72
36.93
11.87
40.95
36.67
40.00
38.43
41.16
39.70
36.39
11.87
40.01
33.79
39.17
11.87
11.87
41.35
43.29
Assessment
Will
Will
Will
Will
Lake
Lake
Lake
Kane
Cook
Cook
Kane
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Henry
Boone
DeKalb
County
Kendall
Kendall
St. Clair
McHenry
McHenry
McHenry
Kankakee
Alexander
Vermillion
Island Rock
Winnebago
Stephenson
City
Zion
Elgin
Joliet
Cairo
Cicero
Dolton
Aurora
DeKalb
Danville
Oswego
Yorkville
Freeport
Lockport
Rockford
Kewanee
McHenry
Plainfield
Frankfort
Belvidere
Kankakee
Oak Oak Lawn
Waukegan
Island Rock
Park Forest Park
Woodstock
CrystalLake
Streamwood
East St. Louis
North Chicago
ChicagoHeights
9
7
3
4
2
1
5
16
14
83
75
63
70
68
23
74
64
56
46
65
69
66
28
71
52
55
51
42
62
40
2005
Rank
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
2013
Rank
in in 89 Illinois cities
home $250,000 a on 2014) in (collected taxes property 2013 estimated and rates Effective tax
Tax Facts • November/December 2015 •7 2013
Value
3.52% 3.51% 3.49% 3.42% 3.41% 3.41% 3.36% 3.33% 3.32% 3.28% 3.26% 3.23% 3.18% 3.12% 3.10% 3.07% 3.06% 3.04% 3.03% 3.02% 3.00% 2.98% 2.95% 2.95% 2.94% 2.93% 2.91% 2.90% 2.89% 2.87%
Market
% of Fair
Rate as a
Effective Tax
on a
2013
Home
Tax Bill
$8,802 $8,764 $8,733 $8,548 $8,516 $8,514 $8,398 $8,322 $8,292 $8,191 $8,161 $8,073 $7,949 $7,798 $7,752 $7,665 $7,642 $7,591 $7,573 $7,561 $7,502 $7,457 $7,381 $7,365 $7,345 $7,317 $7,287 $7,238 $7,230 $7,181
$250,000
(%)
9.942
9.416
9.857
9.108
9.144 9.365 9.908 9.401 9.933 8.956
9.588 9.759 9.778 8.628 9.233 8.779 9.062 9.029 9.421
10.783 10.872
10.462
10.106
10.231 10.767 10.020 11.110
10.732
10.324
12.225
Tax Rate
Value
Taxable
$71,998 $81,275 $80,325 $85,975 $81,400 $90,425 $83,100 $84,425 $81,050 $76,075 $81,450 $72,663 $87,275 $72,663 $84,775 $81,850 $77,125 $80,750 $76,243 $84,425 $72,663 $77,775 $75,629 $75,325 $85,129 $79,250 $83,000 $79,875 $80,075 $76,219
7,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Exemption
Homestead
1.0287
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0300
1.0000
1.0284
1.0000
2.6621
1.0000
0.9823
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
2.6621
1.0000
2.6621
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
2.6621
Multiplier
Level
11.87 34.91 34.53 36.79 34.96 38.57 35.64 36.17 34.82 32.83 34.98 11.97 37.31 11.97 36.31 35.14 33.25 34.70 33.49 36.17 11.97 33.51 31.75 32.53 35.39 34.10 35.60 34.35 34.43 31.97
Assessment
Cass
Ogle
Knox
Cook
Kane
Cook
Cook
Cook
Bond
Logan
LaSalle
LaSalle
Macon
County
DuPage Jackson
St. Clair
Fayette Warren
DuPage
Franklin
Iroquois
Madison
Moultrie
Tazewell
Jefferson
Whiteside
Livingston
Champaign
RockIsland
McDonough
City
Alton
LaSalle
Lincoln Moline
Ottawa Urbana
Benton
Virginia
Pontiac Oregon
Geneva
Sterling
Sullivan
Decatur
Palatine
Addison
Watseka
Oak Park
Vandalia
Macomb
Belleville
Lombard
Galesburg
Greenville
East Peoria
DesPlaines
Carbondale
Monmouth
Mt. Vernon
Northbrook
6 8
79
30 36 37 53 27 12 11 41 84 81 88 13 58 15 19 17 21 86 22 32 77 33 25 76 39 26 38
2005
Rank
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
2013
Rank
Effective tax rates and estimated 2013 property taxes (collected in 2014) on a $250,000 home in in 89 Illinois cities (continued)
8 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015
2013
Value
1.71%
2.11%
2.16%
2.18%
2.19%
2.25%
2.43%
2.44%
2.46%
2.50%
2.50%
2.51%
2.51%
2.57%
2.63%
2.63%
2.63%
2.64%
2.64%
2.65%
2.67%
2.72%
2.75%
2.77%
2.79%
2.80%
2.80%
2.85%
2.85%
Market
% % of Fair
Rate Rate as a
Tax Effective
a on
2013
Home
$4,272
$5,270
$5,412
$5,450
$5,465
$5,633
$6,081
$6,106
$6,140
$6,245
$6,259
$6,274
$6,278
$6,428
Bill Tax $6,584
$6,586
$6,586
$6,599
$6,600
$6,622
$6,674
$6,811
$6,868
$6,919
$6,963
$6,990
$6,996
$7,136
$7,129
$250,000
(%)
6.993
7.126
7.265
7.046
7.949
8.439
7.654
7.313
8.450
7.960
8.102
8.082
7.985
8.283
7.932
8.561
8.512
8.117
8.370
7.588
8.337
8.233
7.612
8.524
8.985
8.643
9.218
9.820
9.749
Rate Tax
Value
Taxable
$61,083
$73,950
$74,500
$77,350
$68,750
$66,750
$79,450
$83,500
$72,663
$78,450
$77,250
$77,625
$78,625
$77,600
$83,000
$76,925
$77,374
$81,300
$78,850
$87,275
$80,050
$82,725
$90,225
$81,175
$77,500
$80,875
$75,900
$72,663
$73,125
7,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
7,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
7,000
6,000
Exemption
Homestead
1.0000 2.6621 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
1.0000 0.9800 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2.6621 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2.6621
1.00000
Multiplier
Level
10.23
31.98
32.20
33.34
29.90
29.10
34.18
35.80
11.97
33.78
33.30
33.45
33.85
33.44
35.60
33.17
34.03
34.92
33.94
37.31
34.42
35.49
38.49
34.87
33.40
34.75
32.76
11.97
31.65
Assessment
Lake
Lake
Cook
Cook
Cook
Coles
Edgar
White
Peoria
Fulton
Adams
Bureau
County
Grundy
DuPage
DuPage
DuPage
McLean
McLean
Morgan
Johnson
Richland
Madison
Tazewell
Christian
Crawford
Lawrence
Effingham
Sangamon
Champaign
City
Paris
Pekin
Olney
Carmi
Peoria
Morris
Quincy
Vienna
Canton
Normal
Chicago
Elmhurst
Evanston
Glenview
Robinson
Wheaton
Princeton
Effingham
Naperville
Taylorville
Springfield
Charleston
Libertyville
Champaign
Zurich Lake
Jacksonville
Edwardsville
Bloomington
Lawrenceville
89
35
59
62
44
20
29
80
87
73
48
60
45
50
78
43
31
57
47
83
36
72
67
34
10
49
18
85
24
2005
Rank
89
88
87
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
2013
Rank
(continued) cities Illinois 89 in
home $250,000 a on 2014) in (collected taxes property 2013 estimated and rates Effective tax
Tax Facts • November/December 2015 •9 State Corporate Income Tax Apportionment Trends: Market-Based Sourcing, With or Without Statutory Authority
By Rick Strohmaier, Chelsie Nelson, and Chuck Jones of Grant Thornton LLP
This article is based on a presentation at TFI’s 2015 State and Local Tax Conference by Ted Bots, partner, Baker & McKenzie LLP; Mariano Sori, partner, BDO USA LLP; and Rick Strohmaier, partner, Grant Thornton LLP
Introduction Commission to provide states a uniform method A recent trend among states in corporate income of dividing income among themselves. UDITPA apportionment is the move to market-based Section 17 was originally based on a COP method sourcing from cost-of-performance (COP). [See of apportionment. This method has become “What is Income Tax Apportionment” on page 14 increasingly outdated as customers are more for a brief primer on income tax apportionment.] often located outside the state where COP For example, in 2007, the Illinois Income Tax Act occurs. Therefore, many states which follow the was amended to formally adopt the market- original UDITPA method have taken advantage of based sourcing method over COP. Other states a provision allowing taxpayers to use an statutorily shifting to market-based sourcing alternative apportionment method (Section 18) recently include Massachusetts and if the activity is not fairly represented, Pennsylvania. Under COP, receipts are sourced prescribing instead a market-based method. As to the location where the income-producing the states increasingly allowed alternative activity occurred. Under market-based, service methods, the MTC followed suit, and on July 30, revenue is sourced to the location of the service 2014 at its annual meeting, the MTC replaced the provider’s customers or where customers COP method with a market-based sourcing received the benefit of the service. Some states approach. 1 This article focuses on states that with traditional COP statutes and regulations are have adopted a market-based sourcing applying market-based sourcing through audit or approach, even in the absence of explicit administrative rulings. statutory authority to do so.
UDITPA The Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA) was created by the Uniform Law
1 Multistate Tax Compact Art. IV.17. 10 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015 Use of Market-Based Sourcing Under UDITPA consistent with a market-based method. In Section 18 another instance, a taxpayer who published and Prior to 2014 Pennsylvania adopted the language distributed Yellow Page telephone directories of UDITPA for apportioning income. 2 However, utilized the COP method prescribed by the Department of Revenue (DOR) did not Tennessee which resulted in no receipts sourced strictly follow traditional COP principals. In one to Tennessee. This stance was challenged on example, an onboard computing/carrier fleet audit and the Commissioner required the communications provider apportioned all its taxpayer to include advertising sales receipts in income outside Pennsylvania, although its addition to the receipts already included in the customers received a benefit only in sales factor. 6 Pennsylvania. On audit, the DOR argued that the income-producing activity was the receipt of the A similar Section 18 argument was made by benefit of the service, apportioning all income to Mississippi when a Georgia corporation using the Pennsylvania. In another matter, a mortgage standard COP method had no income company was required to source a portion of attributable to Mississippi. 7 However, the revenue to Pennsylvania because it was present, Mississippi Department of Revenue determined regardless of whether income was generated that the standard COP method, although the there. These decisions indicate the willingness of chosen regulatory method in Mississippi, was not the DOR to interpret apportionment rules reflective of the extent of the taxpayer’s business broadly. Effective January 1, 2014 Pennsylvania in Mississippi. The Department enforced a adopted market-based sourcing for its corporate market-based sourcing method. 8 income tax and capital stock/franchise tax.3 Historically, receipts were sourced to New York if Similarly, Tennessee is using a COP method of the service was performed in the state.9 Under apportionment until July 1, 2016.4 In one case, this law, an “other business receipts” rule was the Commissioner found that the COP method used as a catchall provision.10 For example, an did not fairly represent the extent of a insurance information supplier was held to have telecommunications company’s business in other business receipts attributable to New York Tennessee, rather, an alternative method should if the transmission equipment used by the be used in limited and specific circumstances when COP produces an incongruous result. 5 In this case, the alternative apportionment was 6 Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Chumley , 308 S.W.3d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009), leave to appeal denied , Tenn. Su- preme Court, March 1, 2010. 2 72 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7401(3)2.(a)(17), (18). 7 Equifax, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 125 So. 3d 36 (Miss. 3 72 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7401(3)2.(a)(16.1)(C). 2013), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 2872 (2014). 4 Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 67-4-2012(i); 67-4-2111(i). 8 See Code Miss. R. 35-III-8.06:402.09. 5 Vodafone Americas Holdings Inc. v. Roberts, Tennessee Court of 9 Former N.Y. Tax Law § 210.3.(a)(2)(B); N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Appeals, No. M2013-00947-COA-R3-CV, June 23, 2014, leave to Regs. tit. 20, § 4-4.3(a). appeal granted , Tenn. Supreme Court, Nov. 20, 2014. 10 See former N.Y. Tax Law Section 210.3.(a)(2)(D). Tax Facts • November/December 2015 •11 customer was located in the state. 11 Effective receipts because the benefit of the service was January 1, 2015, New York adopted market- received in Indiana, though under a COP method based legislation.12 Since the change, another California would be where the sales were administrative decision took another approach, sourced. 16 An online education service provider finding the market-based approach not in effect whose costs were incurred outside Indiana was for the years at issue for a certain taxpayer held to have Indiana receipts because students because receipts from online advertising purchased the services from within Indiana.17 It revenue were from services and not other may be argued that Indiana has unofficially business receipts.13 At least one other opinion adopted market-based sourcing through these in New York has taken a similar approach.14 and other rulings. 18
Use of Market-Based Souring Based on Florida has a COP apportionment regulation and Interpretation of Income-Producing Activity provides guidance for interpretation. However, The alternative apportionment option found in in multiple instances Florida has taken a position UDITPA Section 18 has not been the states’ only that differs from its regulation. A cable television avenue for imposing a market-based sourcing provider who provided content to distributors regime. Indiana parallels UDITPA for was found to have receipts in Florida based on apportionment. 15 Indiana’s COP regulations the location of distributors rather than the include examples. However, even with examples, location of the income-producing activities, the Department of Revenue has issued decisions which occurred outside Florida.19 In a separate that instead apply a market-based approach. A instance, a provider of educational services was healthcare provider was held to have Indiana found to have Florida receipts based on the
11 New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Advisory Opinion TSB-A-00(15)C, Sept. 6, 2000; former N.Y. Tax Law § 16 Revenue Ruling 2014-01IT, Indiana Dept. of Revenue, March 18, 210.3.(a)(2)(D). 2015. 12 N.Y. Tax Law § 210-A.10, which was later amended by Ch. 59 17 Letter of Finding 02-20140455 , Indiana Dept. of Revenue, Jan. (A.B. 3009), Laws 2015, effective April 13, 2015. 28, 2015. 13 Expedia Inc., N.Y. Div. of Tax App., Admin Law Judge Unit, Nos. 18 See Letter of Finding 02-20130238, Indiana Dept. of Revenue, 825025, 825026 (2015). Sept. 25, 2013; see also Letter of Finding 04-0398 , Indiana Dept. 14 New York State Department of Taxation and Finance Advisory of Revenue, Sept. 1, 2006. Opinion TSB-A-09(8)C, June 16, 2009. 19 Technical Assistance Advisement 11C1-008 , Florida Dept. of Rev- 15 Ind. Code § 6-3-2-2(f), (l); Ind. Admin. Code tit. 45, r. 3.1-1-55. enue, Sept. 15, 2011. Illinois Tax Facts Illinois Tax Facts is published by the Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1940 to promote efficiency and economy in government. Reprint permission is granted for articles with credit given to source. Annual membership in the Taxpayers’ Federation includes Tax Facts and other publications. For additional information write: Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois, 430 East Vine St., Suite A, Springfield, IL 62703, call 217.522.6818, e-mail at [email protected] or visit our website at www.iltaxwatch.org. A membership contribution is not deductible as a charitable contribution for federal income tax purposes, but may be deductible as an ordinary business expense. A portion of your membership contribution to TFI, however, is not deductible as a necessary business expense because of the organization’s lobbying activity. The non-deductible portion is 25%. TFI is exempt from federal income tax under Section 501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Carol S. Portman ...... President Maurice Scholten ...... Legislative Director Kellie R. Cookson ...... Office Manager Tracy Scaduto ...... Office Assistant
12 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015 residence of the students. 20 In still more shifted in many states to a market-based instances Florida has reached results that require approach. In other words, some states seem to taxpayers to source receipts based on customer have unofficially adopted market-based sourcing location rather than the state regulation.21 without enacting legislation. Therefore, corporate taxpayers who follow the regulations Conclusion of a state may be surprised on audit if they have As the economy shifts to become more service- performed no further analysis in regard to audit based, states naturally move toward market- practices and administrative decisions by the based sourcing. In states that remain under a states. COP regime, interpretation of these statutes has
20 Technical Assistance Advisement 12C1-006 , Florida Dept. of Rev- enue, May 17, 2012. 21 Technical Assistance Advisement 12C1-004 , Florida Dept. of Rev- enue, May 21, 2013; Technical Assistance Advisement 13C1-011 , Florida Dept. of Revenue, Nov. 21, 2013.
Please contact Kellie Cookson at 217.522.6818 or by email at [email protected] if you are interested in sponsoring any of our events in 2016.
Tax Facts • November/December 2015 •13 What is Income Tax Apportionment?
By Maurice Scholten, Legislator Director, Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois
Many corporations conduct business in multiple states. It would be unrealistic (and probably unconstitutional) for a corporation to owe tax on 100% of its income to each of the fifty states. Therefore, each state has to determine how much of a corporation’s income should be subject to that state’s tax -- how to apportion a corporation’s income.
The first widely adopted method of apportionment is commonly referred to as 3-factor apportionment. It is calculated by averaging three different factors-- the sales, property, and payroll factors. The sales factor is a fraction where the numerator is the amount of sales (or gross receipts) the corporation made in the state and the denominator is the corporation’s total sales. The numerator of the property factor is the value of the property the corporation has in the state and the denominator is the total value of the corporation’s property. Finally, the payroll factor numerator is the amount of payroll the corporation has in the state and the denominator is the corporation’s total payroll. The average of the three factors—the apportionment factor—is multiplied by the corporation’s total taxable income (the base) to determine that state’s share. This is the way Illinois apportioned a corporation’s income when it first enacted the corporate income tax in 1969.
States have deviated from the three-factor apportionment method by more heavily weighing the sales factor, and many now use only the sales factor. The “single sales factor” apportionment method was challenged and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair (437 US 267, 1978). An Illinois business argued that Iowa’s single sales factor resulted in double taxation. The Court rejected the company’s arguments and upheld Iowa’s single sales factor as an acceptable approximation of income attributable to Iowa.
As illustrated in the following example, the single sales factor generally increases the tax on out of state businesses, and lowers the tax on businesses with substantial payroll and property in the state (explaining why it was an Illinois business challenging Iowa’s use of the method in the Moorman case). Illinois adopted the single sales factor apportionment method in 1998. 23 states now use the single sales factor, 16 states use a multi factor apportionment with the sales factor more heavily weighted, and only 9 states have the traditional three factor apportionment.
14 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015 Single Sales Factor Examples
Scenario 1 – Illini Seed Co.
Sales: 50% in Illinois and 50% in Wisconsin Property: 100% in Illinois Payroll: 100% in Illinois Income: $1 million Illini Seed Co. has nexus in Illinois and Wisconsin
Single Sales Factor: Illinois and Wisconsin both tax $500,000 of Illini’s income. Illini pays income tax on $1 million of its income.
Illinois has Three Factor Apportionment and Wisconsin retains Single Sales Factor: Illinois (100%+100%+50%) taxes 5/6 of Illini’s income or $833,333. 3 = 83% or 5/6. Wisconsin still taxes half of Illini’s income or $500,000. Illini pays income taxes on $1,333,333 of income even though it only made $1,000,000.
Scenario 2 – Badger Seed Co.
Sales: 50% in Illinois and 50% in Wisconsin Property: 100% in Wisconsin Payroll: 100% in Wisconsin Income: $1 million Badger Seeds has nexus in Illinois and Wisconsin
Single Sales Factor: Illinois and Wisconsin both tax $500,000 of Badger’s income. Badger pays income tax on $1 million of its income.
Illinois has Three Factor Apportionment and Wisconsin retains Single Sales Factor: Illinois (0%+0%+50%) taxes 1/6 of Badger’s income or $166,667. 3 = 17% or 1/6. Wisconsin still taxes $500,000 of Badger’s income. Badger pays income taxes on $666,667 of its income even though it made $1,000,000.
Tax Facts • November/December 2015 •15 Taxpayers’ Federation of Illinois 430 East Vine Street, Suite A NONPROFIT Springfield, IL 62703 ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE V. 217.522.6818 PAID F. 217.522.6823 Springfield, IL Return Service Requested Permit No. 890
16 • Tax Facts • November/December 2015 WILLIAM L. HINRICHS
Education Ph.D. 1982, Illinois State University Major: Educational Administration Areas of Concentration: School Finance and Statistics Dissertation: Equity Measurement in Illinois Public School Finance: A Pseudo-Unit Approach
M.S. 1973, Western Illinois University Major: Mathematics
B.S. 1971, Western Illinois University Major: Mathematics
Experience 1995 Illinois State Board of Education - Springfield, Illinois to Senior Policy Advisor 2003 Conducted school finance related research. Developed school finance related computer models and simulations for the Illinois General Assembly. Provided assistance to agency personnel on special projects. Primary consultant to General Assembly on 1997 General State Aid formula reform.
1992 Illinois State Board of Education - Springfield, Illinois to Reimbursements Manager 1995 Managed Reimbursements Section. Directed and implemented agency fiscal policy Served as liaison with various committees. Continued with school finance research activities.
1986 Illinois State Board of Education - Springfield, Illinois to Staff Assistant 1992 Conducted research leading to recommendations for a new system of funding elementary and secondary education in Illinois. Conducted and supervised various research projects relating to formula development, income collection, district organization, and property taxes.
1988 Southern Illinois University - Carbondale, Illinois to Part Time Instructor 1989 Taught courses in School Finance and School Business Administration.
Partial List of Publications Author: Additional Approaches to the Measurement of Equity in Illinois Public School Finance, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Illinois State University, 1981.
Author: The Effect of Consolidation of Elementary and Secondary Districts into Unit Districts in Illinois Upon Equity Goals in That State, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Illinois State University, March 1983.
Author: "Illinois School Finance Study", paper presented to Illinois State Board of Education, Chicago, Illinois, August 1986.
Author: "School Finance", paper presented to Annual State Superintendents Conference, Springfield, Illinois, September 1986.
Author: "Illinois School Finance Revisited", paper presented to Annual State Superintendents Conference, Springfield, Illinois, September 1987.
Author: "Revenue Disparity in Illinois Public School Finance", paper presented to American Education Finance Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, March 1990.
Author: "The Concept of Equity", paper presented to Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois, May 1990.
Co-Author (with Mr. George Evans): "Adequacy: A Proposed Methodology", paper presented to the Task Force on School Finance, Springfield, Illinois, March 1991.
Author: "Alternatives for School Finance Reform in Illinois", paper prepared for the Task Force on School Finance, Springfield, Illinois, April 1991.
Author: "Progress Report for School Finance Reform in Illinois", paper prepared for the Task Force on School Finance, Springfield, Illinois, May 1991.
Author: "Core Issues for School Finance Reform in Illinois", paper prepared for the Task Force on School Finance, Springfield, Illinois, May 1991.
Author: "Working Paper for the Task Force on School Finance", paper prepared for the Task Force on School Finance, Springfield, Illinois, October 1991.
Author: "Final Report of the Illinois Task Force on School Finance", report prepared for the Task Force on School Finance, Springfield, Illinois, January 1993.
Co-Author: State, Local, and Federal Financing of Illinois Public Schools, for school years beginning 1986-87 through 1997-98 Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois 62777.
Co-Author: Illinois Public Schools Financial Statistics and Local Property Tax Data, for school years beginning 1988-89 through 1996-97 Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield, Illinois 62777.
Co-Author (with Richard D. Laine): Funding High- Quality Public Education: The Illinois Dilemma, Policy Briefs, Report 1, 1995.
Co-Author (with Richard D. Laine): Adequacy: Building Quality and Efficiency Into the Cost of Education, The Journal of School Business Management, Volume 9 No. 1, Spring 1997.
Author: General State Aid Data Shift and Marginal Dollars: A Trend Analysis, The Journal of School Business Management, Volume 9 No. 1, Spring 1997.
Author: "1997-98 Adequacy Grants and General State Aid Hold Harmless", paper in response to 1997 Illinois Legislative session, Springfield, Illinois, June 1997.
Author: "The Edgar/Madigan General State Aid Formula: A Comparison to the Current General State Aid Formula", paper in response to 1997 Illinois Legislative session, Springfield, Illinois, September 1997.
Author: "The House Bill 452 General State Aid Formula: A Comparison to Illinois’ Current General State Aid Formula", paper in response to 1997 Illinois Legislative Special Session, Springfield, Illinois, January 1998.
Author (with Toni Waggoner): "Schools with Extraordinary IGAP Scores", paper for general distribution, Springfield, Illinois, April 1998.
Author: "Is Equity Dead in Illinois?”, The Journal of School Business Management, Volume 11 No. 2, Fall 1999.
Author: "Illinois’ New General State Aid Formula: What We Know Now", presented to the American Education Finance Association, Seattle, Washington, March 1999.
Author: "General State Aid Hold Harmless: How Long Can/Should It Last?", paper for general distribution, Springfield, Illinois, October 1999.
Author (with Toni Waggoner): "Adequacy: Building Quality and Efficiency Into the Cost of Education – A New Methodology for Determining Educationally Efficient Schools", paper for general distribution, Springfield, Illinois, June 2001.
Author: "State Aid Formula Changes: What Happened and Where Did the Money Go?", paper for general distribution, Springfield, Illinois, September 2001.
Author: "Starting Over in Illinois", paper for general distribution, Springfield, Illinois, April 2002.
Author: "It’s Official!!! Hold Harmless is Here to Stay", paper for general distribution, Springfield, Illinois, August 2002.
Tax Increment Financing and School Funding In Maryland there are several state and local property tax policies that have the potential to impact how a school district’s property tax base is calculated for school funding purposes. One tax exemption program with the potential to impact school funding is Tax Increment Financing authorities (TIF). TIFs can be used by local taxing authorities to provide subsidies for economic development programs in local communities. A TIF district allows for the use of future gains in taxes to pay for current economic development projects, which means that the city or county in which the TIF district is located will have property values on which it is not collecting taxes. A 2008 study found that 49 states currently allow local taxing authorities to make use of some form of TIF districts – the only exception was Arizona.1 Of those 49 states, only ten states mandate that school districts have some say over the TIF process. Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, New York, and Utah require permission from a school district board before a TIF program may be authorized. Colorado, Iowa, and Ohio require that school districts must be consulted or be allowed to review a TIF program before it can be issued. Only Kentucky and Washington specifically state that TIF programs cannot be used to reduce school district tax revenues.
States are in a difficult position with TIFs and the determination of district fiscal capacity. If a state continues to count the value of-exempted property in their calculation of a district’s fiscal capacity, the district will receive reduced state funding for a decision in which the district had no part. However, if the state does not count property that has been exempted by a TIF, then it may encourage the growth of TIF districts in the state, leading to an increasing state subsidy of local economic development decisions.
Illinois provides an example of the potential effects of exempting property within TIF districts from the state’s calculation of relative wealth. In Illinois, each dollar of property exempted by a TIF reduces the fiscal capacity of the district by a dollar, increasing its share of state education aid funding. A 2011 study found that the city of Chicago has widely employed TIFs as an economic development tool and 30 percent of the city’s taxable property is now within a TIF district. Because state policy exempts this property from the calculation of a district’s fiscal capacity, “Illinois taxpayers on the whole are paying for usage of TIF as an economic development tool in Chicago.”2
Conclusion TIFs and other programs that exempt property from full taxation are a frequently used tool to enhance economic development that will benefit a local school district and state over time. However, the way a state uses the effective reduced property value in measuring the fiscal capacity of school districts can reduce district funding. At present in Maryland, tax exemptions provided for economic development do not change the measured fiscal capacity of a school district, but they reduce actual revenues. If Maryland allowed districts to reduce their fiscal capacity amount by the full valuation of property exempted for economic development purposes, it could create an incentive to over utilize these measures at the expense of the rest of the state. The study team recommends Maryland adopt a solution where a portion of a tax
1 TIF State-By-State Report Database, Council of Development Finance Agencies. December, 2008. Accessed on the web, July 20, 2015: http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/tifmap.nsf/index.html. 2 Bruno, Robert and Alison Dickson, Tax Increment Financing and Chicago Public Schools: A New Approach to Comprehending a Complex Relationship, University of Illinois. December, 2011. Page 15.
exemption is used to reduce the district’s fiscal capacity and a portion is used to reduce the property wealth of the district. Since in the long run both the district and state will theoretically benefit from enhanced economic development, this approach allows all three entities – the district, the municipality, and the state – to share both the costs and the potential benefits over time.
Appendix D
Table D1: State Policies That Allow for District Input for Tax Increment Authorities State Policy Colorado A school district must be consulted before the TIF can be issued.
Delaware TIFs can only be activated with the approval of the local school board.
Iowa Provide notice and consultation with all impacted taxing entities – including school districts.
Kansas TIFs can only be activated with approval of the local school board.
Kentucky School districts cannot pledge funding toward a TIF.
Nebraska TIFs can only be activated with the approval of the local school board. New York All taxing districts – including school districts – must provide approval.
Ohio School districts are provided periodic reviews.
Utah TIFs can only be activated with the approval of the local school board.
Washington TIFs cannot include taxes levied by school districts.
Source: Council of Development Finance Agencies, Accessed on July 30, 2015: http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/tifmap.nsf/index.html
Annual LEND Breakfast Saturday November 19, 2016 8:00 a.m. Swissotel 323 East Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 Edelweiss Suite 43rd Floor $15.00/person
Please RSVP to Jen Figurelli at [email protected] no later thanWednesday, November 6, 2016
Please make checks payable to: LEND c/o Jen Figurelli, 22W600 Butterfield Rd Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
DARIEN DISTRICT 61
FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM UPDATE
OCTOBER 19, 2016
1. How is the satellite program working?
The satellite program has started exceptionally well with normal situations happening for any new program. We had some delays in delivery of equipment but happily I can say we have all of the equipment at all the schools. The student response to the menu selections, food taste and quality and the eye appeal has been a very positive feedback. Believe it or not, one of the comments was from the students at the elementary schools with service of the food on the plate tray and not in small containers. Another was the quality of the food, taste of the food and new food items.
2. How many breakfasts and lunches are you serving each day? Are numbers increasing or decreasing?
Currently the breakfast and lunches served daily at the elementary schools are basically the same as last year. With only a little more than a month into the school year, we are starting to see the students understanding the school day procedures and expectations. Elementary breakfast daily numbers have been approximately 100 for Mark Delay and Lace at 70 per day. Elementary lunch daily numbers have been approximately 180 for Mark Delay elementary and 160 at Lace elementary. Eisenhower Jr High breakfast daily numbers had been 3 to a high of 10 per day and lunch daily number average 160 to 180 per day.
3. What has Mr. Roger Meyer’s role been?
Mr. Meyer has been training the Eisenhower staff on satellite production and time management. I have had Mr. Meyer initiate written task lists to help the staff to learn the process of managing the daily task in the proper priority and efficiency to the day. I have asked Mr. Meyer to work with the servers with efficient serving methods and customer line flow and customer service relations. Mr. Meyer is also providing the same instructions to the elementary schools. Mr. Meyer is working closely with me on the food orders to utilize the commodities to keep food costs down.
4. How do I feel the program is going?
I feel we are moving in the right direction. Although the programs are still the National School Breakfast and Lunch Program, we are implementing the program differently than before. There is a transitioning time for staff and participants. The goal is to improve the food in selection, taste, quality and to draw a larger clientele to the cafeteria while maintaining a cost efficient operation. 5. How are the employees performing with the satellite program?
The employees have taken on the satellite program very well and learning as we say “on the job”. Food Service is required by USDA to perform Professional Standards training hours per employee classification title. As the Director I am utilizing this requirement to complete the training hours with topics in proper food handling, time management, and work habits that will continue to give the staff the background and training.
6. Are you planning on making any changes between now and the end of the school year?
Yes, I do plan on several changes at the Eisenhower Jr. High. Last year and just lately I completed Meals per Man Hour analysis for all the schools. Although I had reduced work hours this school year at all schools, the labor is still too high for the meals served per man hour at Eisenhower Jr High. The action plan is to offer additional hot entrée’s on a daily basis whether the entree is a served entrée or in a self- serve section to increase Eisenhower participation. In order to cover labor costs to increase revenue is extremely difficult.
7. Anything else that would be helpful for the Board to understand.
As this is the first year of the satellite program, the cost comparison of the previous year with a contract vended company would not be available to the end of this school year as a total food program.
Please join us for lunch in the cafeteria and see us in operation! Thank you for the support and dedication to the Food Service program at Darien District 61.
Lillie M. Lillie Director of Food Services Darien District 61