Ospi K 12 Finance Outlook And 6 Key Recommendations Vancouver 10 23 08


Published on

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Ospi K 12 Finance Outlook And 6 Key Recommendations Vancouver 10 23 08

    1. 1. K-12 Finance: Depth, Breadth, and Causes of a Looming Finance Crisis <ul><li>What is the Basic Education Finance Task Force? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the financial outlook for school districts? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the funding shortfalls? </li></ul><ul><li>What solutions are proposed? </li></ul><ul><li>What are some implications for school finance re-design? </li></ul>
    2. 2.
    3. 3. Basics of the Basic Education Finance Task Force <ul><li>SB 5627: This act is intended to make provisions for some significant steps towards a new basic education funding system by establishing a joint task force to address the details and next steps beyond the 2007-2009 biennium necessary to implement a new comprehensive K-12 finance formula or formulas. The formula(s) will provide Washington schools with stable and adequate funding as the expectations for the K-12 system continue to evolve. </li></ul>
    4. 4. BEFTF Has Several Proposals to Sift Through for Final Recommendations 12/1/08 <ul><li>Proposals To Date </li></ul><ul><li>Proposals Expected in November </li></ul><ul><li>Superintendent of Public Instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Full Funding Coalition (WASA, WSSDA, PSE, AWSP, WEA) </li></ul><ul><li>League of Education Voters </li></ul><ul><li>Task Force Legislators </li></ul><ul><li>Task Force Chair </li></ul>
    5. 5.
    6. 6. State, Local, and Federal Funds Total $9.3 Billion
    7. 7. K-12 Financial Outlook <ul><li>Why do school districts’ budget problems seem deeper and more widespread than in past years? </li></ul><ul><li>What is at the core of the problem? </li></ul><ul><li>In the recent past, how were districts balancing budgets? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the magnitude of the problem for 2008-09 school year and beyond? </li></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>Local Funds are typically levy and local effort assistance (LEA) dollars </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes Federal and I-728 funds in this analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Common elements: discretionary, not state basic education, do not inflate with staffing-based costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Local Funds are commonly thought to employ “enhancement” staff and programs </li></ul><ul><li>In reality, Local Funds cover major state-funding shortfalls </li></ul><ul><li>Local Funds increases barely cover compensation increases for levy, federal, and I-728 employees </li></ul><ul><li>State and local funds increase too slowly to cover compensation plus all of the other emergencies and pressures to improve student achievement </li></ul>State Underfunding Pushes Costs Onto Maxed-Out Local Funds
    9. 9. Total Compensation Ranges Between 82% and 84% of Total Expenditures
    10. 10. School Districts Spend $1 Billion on Health, Life and Disability Insurance
    11. 11. HLD Expenditures per Student Have Increased Steadily Since 1999 HLD as % of per Student Expenditures
    12. 12. School Districts Expend 8-9% More for HLD Benefits than the State Allocates per Teacher
    13. 13. Mandatory Pension Contributions Increasing Rapidly
    14. 14. Cost of Living Increases <ul><li>For every $100 million in state funds for COLA, districts expend $44 million in local funds to extend the COLA to all employees (caution, update required) </li></ul><ul><li>Hold that thought </li></ul>
    15. 15. Additional Salaries Increase 6%+ Annually
    16. 16. How Do Supplemental Salaries Increase? <ul><li>6.3% increases driven by multiple factors: </li></ul><ul><li>State COLA applied to TRI schedule </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in extra duties (new curriculum adoptions) </li></ul><ul><li>Higher or more frequent class size overload pay </li></ul><ul><li>New incentives (seniority incentive) </li></ul><ul><li>COLA above state COLA </li></ul><ul><li>National Board Certification increasing </li></ul>
    17. 17. At State Level, No Systematic Data on COLAs Included in Contracts <ul><li>Example contracts of random large districts </li></ul><ul><li>Columns A-L represent percentage increase above state COLA applied to total salary </li></ul><ul><li>In some cases, percentage is linked to extra time (district- and/or teacher-directed) </li></ul><ul><li>“ ? ” Indicates COLA is dependent on negotiations for current contract; outcome unknown </li></ul><ul><li>--- Indicates that contract will be open for this year </li></ul>*Projected I-732 COLA State A B C D E F G H I J K L 07-08 3.7 - 4.3 1.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 .5 2.5 08-09 4.4 - 5.1 .75 2.0 1.5 1.25 5.2 – 5.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 --- 09-10 5.0* ? 3.0 2.0 --- --- 0.0 0.0 1.0 ? --- 1.0 --- 10-11 3.1* ? --- --- --- --- 0.0 0.0 3.0 ? --- --- ---
    18. 18. 1% COLA Drives Significant Percentage Increase in TRI Schedule
    19. 19. Compensation Expenditures Grow Faster than Local, State and Federal Revenue *Budgeted
    20. 20. Structural Disconnect Continues in 2009-10 School Year 1% COLA above I-732 COLA for all Teachers in a District $28 - $35 per student Cost of 2009-10 I-732 COLA on Local Funds (COLA projected at 5%) $99 per student Typical Levy Growth (2007 to 2008) $60 - $100 per student
    21. 21. How Have Districts Balanced Their Budgets in the Last Few Years? <ul><li>2000-2008 </li></ul><ul><li>2009 and Beyond </li></ul><ul><li>Reduction in pension rates saved $364 million </li></ul><ul><li>2003-05 COLA suspension (3.1%) saved $187 million </li></ul><ul><li>Increases in I-728 revenue and federal funding totaled $614 million </li></ul><ul><li>Increase in levy authority to recognize I-732 suspension and I-728 delay </li></ul><ul><li>Pension rates increase </li></ul><ul><li>I-728 and federal dollars flatten </li></ul><ul><li>Local funds continue to support COLAs </li></ul><ul><li>Other costs continue to increase faster than inflation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Health benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fuel </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Levy authority increases an average of 5% </li></ul><ul><li>Levies approved to utilize 92% of authority </li></ul>Appendix slides quantify these statements.
    22. 22. 2000-2008: State Savings of $1.3 Billion in Employer Pension Contributions; $364 Million for Local Funds
    23. 23. Quantifying School District Outlooks for 2008-09 to 2010-11 <ul><li>Revenue increases: I-728, federal, levy, enhanced state funding </li></ul><ul><li>Cost increases: Salary, benefit, and retirement increases not covered by state, and fuel increases </li></ul><ul><li>In 2008-09, districts will have a remaining $38 million in new revenue to cover all remaining cost increases on a $2.8 billion base </li></ul><ul><li>2009-10 and beyond -- same magnitude of problem </li></ul>
    24. 24. With $38 Million Net Growth in Local Funds, Little Room Left for Other Needs <ul><li>Education programs to provide more assistance and/or instructional expertise for students to meet achievement expectations or reduce drop-out rates </li></ul><ul><li>Utilities, Insurance </li></ul><ul><li>Maintenance Emergencies </li></ul><ul><li>Curriculum Adoption </li></ul><ul><li>Increased Salaries Beyond Estimated COLA </li></ul><ul><li>Health Care Costs Above State Allocation Rate </li></ul><ul><li>New Mandates from State/Federal Policymakers </li></ul>
    25. 25. Spending Ending Fund Balance Only Delays Cuts; Many Districts Have Little Balance to Spend
    26. 26. Largest Change for Smallest School Districts
    27. 27. Operating Fund Value of Districts with Less than 2% EFB Held Steady/Remains Large
    28. 28. Summary for 2008-09 School Year <ul><li>Statewide average Ending Fund Balances held steady for 2008-09, but too many districts are on the financial edge </li></ul><ul><li>Roughly 600 staff positions eliminated statewide (equivalent to 1 school district serving 4,000 students) </li></ul><ul><li>7 districts on Binding Conditions (BC) (1 may exit) </li></ul><ul><li>At least 5 districts carefully watching for possible BC </li></ul><ul><li>$2 Billion operating value for districts with 2% or less EFB </li></ul>
    29. 29. Look Forward for 2009-10 SY <ul><li>Little cushion for 2009-10; without new state resources schools face deep and devastating budget reductions </li></ul><ul><li>State COLA is projected at 5%; pension rates increase; health benefits inflation consistent trend up </li></ul><ul><li>Fuel stabilized but high and subject to spikes </li></ul><ul><li>Utilities consistent trend up </li></ul><ul><li>More students in public schools </li></ul><ul><li>More needy students </li></ul><ul><li>$3.2 Billion projected state deficit for 2009-11 Biennium </li></ul>
    30. 30.
    31. 31. State Underfunding is Not Disputed <ul><li>Questions to answer: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the appropriate definition of basic education? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will that definition fix the shortfalls between district reality and state funding? </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. 6 Key Funding Shortfalls Must be Addressed Learning Assistance (4) B . Staff Ratios (1) (Certificated Instructional, Administrative & Classified ) C. Salaries (2) & Benefits D. Operating Costs (NERC) (3) = State General Apportionment Busing (6) Special Education Bilingual (5) A. District Enrollment I-728 Gifted
    33. 33. Resource Level vs. Funding Formula <ul><li>Formula(s) must: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Drive the right resource </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Account for district differences </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide stable and ample funding for decades </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More critical that BEFTF recommendations specifically identify the resource that must be driven by a formula </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Re-defining the basic education resource that represents ample funding of a stable , general and uniform public school system is the fundamental change required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Without a specific set of resource recommendations, future Legislatures can implement the TF formula design but at an inadequate funding level </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. <ul><li>Certificated Instructional Staff </li></ul><ul><li>Classified Staff </li></ul>
    35. 35. Certificated Instructional Staff Ratios (1A) Certificated Instructional Staff K-4: 1:18.8 5-12: 1:21.7 Includes All Teachers, Instructional Coaches, Nurses, Counselors, Librarians, and all other Pupil Support The ratios do not represent true class sizes. Class sizes increase when planning periods, specialist teachers, librarians, counselors, etc., are purchased from the ratio above.
    36. 36. Districts Choose Between Lower Class Sizes, More Hours per Day, and Student Support Instructional Coaches Librarians = = Nurses Current Proposed Guidance Counselors & Pupil Support Certificated Instruction Staff K-4: 1:18.8 5-12: 1:21.7 Students per 1 FTE Staff 6 periods + 1 hr planning Teachers Grades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 1:24.7 1:29.0 1:29.0 1:1,250 1:2,659 1:786 1:462 Certificated Instruction Staff K-5: 15.89 6-12: 18.43 1:21.2 1:25.5 1:25.5 1:1,000 1:500 1:750 1:403 Students per 1 FTE Staff 6 periods + 1 hr planning
    37. 37. Districts Hire Many More Classified Staff Than Are Funded by the State (1B)
    38. 38. SPI Recommendations to BEFTF: Define Basic Education at 25.1 Staff per 1,000 <ul><li>Current ratio: 17 per 1,000 students </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed: 25 per 1,000 students </li></ul>
    39. 39. <ul><li>Certificated Instructional (Primarily Teachers) </li></ul><ul><li>Classified (Non-Certificated) and Administrative (Certificated but Supervise) </li></ul>
    40. 40. Districts Subsidize State Salaries, Issues Differ by Group <ul><li>Teachers and Other Certificated </li></ul><ul><li>Classified and Administrative </li></ul><ul><li>State sets salaries based on a salary schedule and pays some teachers on a greater schedule than others </li></ul><ul><li>State has not evaluated salary levels or purposes for decades; districts pay for some supplemental salaries that are likely a basic education responsibility </li></ul><ul><li>State salary schedule has not been updated to reflect research on compensation incentives or latest research on appropriate base compensation </li></ul><ul><li>(State does not set salaries for classified and administrators; instead the state allocates a salary average for each group) </li></ul><ul><li>State allocates different salary averages among districts based on 30-year-old snapshot </li></ul><ul><li>State has no method to allocate staff salaries to reasonable cost of attracting and retaining </li></ul>
    41. 41. Differences in Teacher Salary Impacts Morale and Retention <ul><li>Base salary most districts </li></ul><ul><li>Base salary of Everett </li></ul><ul><li>Equalizing will cost $167 million and raise most teacher salaries by 5% </li></ul><ul><li>Additional (supplemental) salaries on average nearly $8,500 per teacher statewide </li></ul>55,322 12,878** $61,154 2008-09 Teacher Salaries (average experience and education) $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Typical Everett 52,706 8,448* $68,200 * Projected from 2006-07 ** 2006-07; full-time staff only Base Salary Additional Salaries
    42. 42. Districts Must Subsidize Classified/Admin Salaries by $ 366 Million <ul><li>Average total salary </li></ul><ul><li>State average allocation </li></ul><ul><li>District allocations vary, first step is to equalize salary allocations ($226 million state cost to equalize) </li></ul><ul><li>After equalization, the state still must identify an appropriate method to address true costs districts experience ($140 million difference between equalized allocations and district costs) </li></ul><ul><li>Districts also pay difference in salary and COLA/benefits </li></ul>$36,593 $96,445 $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Classified Administrative 30,688 4,539 1,316 57,065 23,742 15,638 State Avg. Allocation Addt’l $ Above Max Rate State Allocation at Max Rate
    43. 43. Local Funds Pay COLA on 4 Levels <ul><li>COLA on average salary paid for “local staff units” ($54 million) </li></ul><ul><li>COLA on all supplemental salaries, all staff ($24 million) </li></ul><ul><li>COLA on unequalized portion of Classified and Administrative salaries, all staff ($12 million) </li></ul><ul><li>COLA on difference between the state maximum allocation and the salary districts actually pay, all staff ($6 million) </li></ul>$58,340 $36,593 Local Funds COLA Effect (5% in 2009-10) $96 million total $96,445 2007-08 Building Blocks of K-12 Staff Average Salaries $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Instructional Classified Administrative 50,393 7,947 30,688 4,539 1,316 57,065 23,742 15,638 State Avg. Allocation Supplemental Salaries Actual Avg. Paid State Allocation at Max Rate
    44. 44. SPI Salary Recommendations to BEFTF <ul><li>Teachers and Other Certificated </li></ul><ul><li>Classified and Administrative </li></ul><ul><li>Equalize base salaries to Everett level </li></ul><ul><li>Complete BEFTF research on supplemental salaries and comparisons of teacher salaries to other occupations /states; identify appropriate salary and appropriate state contribution </li></ul><ul><li>Adopt a new salary schedule with higher lifetime earnings and increases for certification-based demonstrations of excellence </li></ul><ul><li>Equalize salary allocations across districts </li></ul><ul><li>Identify an appropriate method to allocate salaries at a level consistent with what districts must pay </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Classified salaries based on state salary schedules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Administrative salaries—TBD but must reflect near current actual salaries </li></ul></ul>
    45. 45.
    46. 46. State NERC Funding Intended to Cover All Non-Employee Costs Related to Basic Education = = $9,476 per CIS (2006-07 SY) $468 per student
    47. 47. Districts Spend Over $500 Million More on NERC Than the State Funds (3) 18-yr Cycle 8-yr Cycle
    48. 48. An Increasing Number of Districts Spend Over 80% of Their NERC Allocation on Utilities and Insurance
    49. 49. SPI Recommendation to BEFTF: NERC <ul><li>Define basic education at $1,101 per student instead of $468 (2006-07 dollars) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fully funds operating costs that relate to basic education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Includes $126 per student for curriculum, a 6-year adoption cycle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inflate with measures specific to cost </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Add $282 per student for instructional technology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Phase-in over 7 years </li></ul></ul>
    50. 50.
    51. 51. Poverty is Now the Funding Driver; Lap Funds, in Total, LAP Funds Have Increased Substantially.
    52. 52. Despite Large Increases in Funding, Buying Power Remains Constant
    53. 53. Current LAP Funding Must be Redefined <ul><li>LAP/Title 1/I-728/PAS buying-power (teacher hours) is roughly the same as in 1992-93 </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Assistance Program (LAP) allocates 3.46 staff units per 1,000 poverty students (1 staff per 289 poverty students) </li></ul><ul><li>This equates to a teacher spending 30 minutes per day with groups of 28 struggling students </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No resource for materials, program support or professional development </li></ul></ul>
    54. 54. SPI Recommendation to BEFTF: LAP <ul><li>Redefine the LAP formula with 6 formula components based on successful programs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce class sizes for severe poverty districts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Immediate class size reduction for poorest students; general staffing ratios may be implemented slowly </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hire teachers for small group tutoring (10% of students + more as poverty increases) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Groups of 15 students for 1 teacher, 30 to 50 minutes per day </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hire teachers for intensive tutoring (1% of students + poverty) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Groups of 3 students for 1 teacher, 30 to 50 minutes per day </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Add program administrative support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide professional development for the teacher staffing units driven by parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buy instructional materials </li></ul></ul>
    55. 55. LAP Recommendations Continued <ul><li>LAP must remain a “basic education” program </li></ul><ul><li>Must be a staffing model or risk losing teacher buying power </li></ul><ul><li>Must be based on a model of service proven successful </li></ul><ul><li>Categorical allocation from state to school district </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Districts can implement a different model, hire different mix of staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Districts decide how to allocate among schools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must serve struggling students </li></ul></ul><ul><li>$325 M increase over current funding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I-728 currently pays for a portion of this now </li></ul></ul>
    56. 56.
    57. 57. Buying Power of State Transitional Bilingual Program is Constant
    58. 58. Funding for English Language Learners (5) <ul><li>Current allocation is $904 per student </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Funding generates 1 teacher per 75 ELL students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>At this staffing ratio, no resources are available for interpreters, program administration, professional development, instructional materials, translations, family outreach </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some districts significantly subsidize the ELL program and positively impact student learning </li></ul>
    59. 59. <ul><li>Redefine the ELL formula with 6 formula components based on successful programs: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduce class sizes for ELL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide “floor” funding for districts with few ELL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhance funding for high ELL/multiple language districts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Middle/High school enhancement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide professional development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buy instructional materials and assessments </li></ul></ul><ul><li>$96 M increase over current funding </li></ul><ul><li>Categorical allocation from state to districts </li></ul>SPI Recommendation to BEFTF: ELL 0
    60. 60.
    61. 61. Transportation Funding Gap is Widening JLARC est. for basic education responsibilities underfunding in 2004-05: $92.6 - $114 Million
    62. 62. Diesel $ per Gallon up 48% Over Sept 2007 Price West Coast Monthly Average Retail Price per Gallon of Diesel
    63. 63. Districts Budgeted 28% More for Fuel in 2008-09
    64. 64. Proposed Transportation Solutions and Timeline <ul><li>Oct 1: 2-3 formula options fully developed and presented to Advisory Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Nov 15: Final report to OFM/Legislature </li></ul><ul><li>Early December: Actual funding gap is known for basic education (to/from) transportation, 2007-08 school year </li></ul><ul><li>Jan 15: OSPI completes modeling of district-by-district impact of 2-3 formula options </li></ul>
    65. 65.
    66. 66. Last Thoughts <ul><li>Very few opportunities to redefine Basic Education </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Education shortfalls are so large, fixes will take many years </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires prioritization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Much of the early investments do not buy new programs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recommendations must address the resource level needed, but formula structure will drive district practice for decades </li></ul><ul><ul><li>General apportionment allocation vs. Categorical allocation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>BEFTF needs specific recommendations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What needs to be purchased and why? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the formula that would drive this resource or where does it fit into a formula? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the phase-in priority? </li></ul></ul>
    67. 67. Minimum Outcomes Needed from the BEFTF <ul><li>Improve funding ratios for Certificated Instructional and Classified Staff </li></ul><ul><li>Salary Policy and Funding </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>First, equalize classified and administrator allocations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Then, allocate classified/administrator based on common-sense methods that cover actual costs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Address state underfunding of teacher compensation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Compensate teachers for excellence </li></ul></ul></ul>
    68. 68. Minimum Outcomes Needed from the BEFTF <ul><li>Improve funding level for NERC, inflate with common sense measures </li></ul><ul><li>Improve funding for LAP </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Staffing formula driven by instructional programming reality and informed by research </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Improve funding for ELL </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Staffing formula driven by instructional reality and diverse community needs and informed by research </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Implement a new formula with adequate funding for pupil transportation </li></ul><ul><li>Special Education </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New $ driven via components 1-3 </li></ul></ul></ul>
    69. 69. Budget Context <ul><li>$3.2 Billion projected deficit for biennium </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K-12 “share” ~$ 1.34 B </li></ul></ul><ul><li>COLA is 5% in 2009-10; 3.1% in 2010-11 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$590 M cost included in deficit projection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Drives an additional $ 257 M in local funds needed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>State cannot cut “basic education” </li></ul><ul><li>Non-basic items include (b iennial savings): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>K-4 enhancement ($388 M) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 LID ($ 75 M) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Levy equalization ($ 456 M) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>I-728 ($908 M) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gifted education ($ 20 M) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health Benefits inflation ($ 96 M if 7% inflation) </li></ul></ul>
    70. 70. What Should K-12 Do? Start Now <ul><li>Communicate that all districts are facing deficits </li></ul><ul><li>Project 2-year deficits now, after Governor’s budget released (mid-December), after each chamber (March) </li></ul><ul><li>Publically recognize the difficult job that policymakers face </li></ul><ul><li>Identify I-728-supported programs </li></ul><ul><li>Publically identify reduction options and impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Speak with one-voice on way-forward </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Must-do” list from Task Force recommendations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communicate re: need for foundational resources to afford compensation increases </li></ul></ul>
    71. 71. For More Information <ul><li>Jennifer Priddy: (360) 725-6292, or by email, [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Superintendent Bergeson's BEFTF Proposal: http://www.k12.wa.us/Communications/BasicEdFundingTaskForce.aspx </li></ul><ul><li>Basic Education Finance Task Force: http://www.leg.wa.gov/Joint/Committees/BEF/ </li></ul>
    72. 72.
    73. 73. 2003-05 and Beyond, Impact to Local Funds Was Minimized by Suspension of I-732 COLA
    74. 74. 2000-2008: Local Funds Avoided $551 Million in Compensation Costs
    75. 75. From 1999-2008, I-728 and Federal Funds Increased by $614 Million; B eginning 2008-09 Only Small Increases
    76. 76. Districts are Already Maximizing Levy Authority
    77. 77. LAP $ per LAP “Poverty Unit” Now Greater Than 1992-93 Level
    78. 78. Combined Resources for Struggling Students Have Consistently Increased