Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COMMITTEE ON JOINT EDUCATION

Date:03/21/2012
ATTENDANCE
Time:08:02 AM to 08:52 AM
Beezley
Hamner
Place:HCR 0112
Heath
Holbert
This Meeting was called to order by
Hudak
Representative Massey
Johnston
Joshi
This Report was prepared by
Kerr A.
Jennifer Thomsen
King K.
Murray
Peniston
Ramirez
Renfroe
Schafer S.
Solano
Spence
Summers
Todd
Bacon
Massey
X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call
Bills Addressed: Action Taken:
Presentation by the Colo School Finance Project-


08:02 AM -- Presentation by the Colorado School Finance Project

Representative Massey called the meeting to order and welcomed the presenters, Tracie Rainey, Executive Director, Colorado School Finance Project (CSFP); John Augenblick, Past President, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.; and Justin Silverstein, Vice President, Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc. They provided a handout (Attachment A).

JtEd0321AttachA.pdf

Ms. Rainey described the goals and objectives of the adoption of the Colorado School Finance Act (SFA) of 1994. She explained that the goals of the SFA included: to have a 50 percent state and 50 percent local contribution in the funding formula; to acknowledge differences in students, districts, and regions; to allow for additional district participation through an override system; and to promote universal access for students. Ms. Rainey spoke to Colorado's changing student population, noting that enrollment has increased by more than 100,000 students over the past ten years, and many of these students are at-risk students. She spoke briefly about English language learners (ELL) and special education and gifted and talented populations.







08:07 AM

Mr. Silverstein referred the committee to page five in Attachment A, and provided an overview of Colorado's school districts by student count and district size. He said Colorado districts range from fewer than 500 students to more than 85,000 students, and the average is about 5,000 students. He said very few districts serve student populations in which more than 80 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and none of the districts with the largest percentage of free- or reduced-price-lunch eligible students are large urban districts.


08:10 AM

Ms. Rainey provided historical information about the SFA and what it set out to accomplish. She explained that, for states to be granted statehood, there had to be assurances to the federal government that the state would provide education services. To this end, Colorado adopted an education clause to its state constitution, consisting of two components: the "local control" and the "thorough and uniform" clauses. In addition, she noted, the constitution recognized that the state is not the direct provider of education services and school districts were given taxing authority. School district boards of education were given authority to make local education decisions. Finally, she said an SFA typically has a life-span of about seven years, but Colorado's is 18 years old.


08:12 AM

Mr. Augenblick talked about the school finance principles illustrated on page seven of Attachment A. He talked about the goals and objectives of an SFA: an adequate amount of money to accomplish state goals; a system that is equitable for students and taxpayers; a system that is sustainable, which is defined by consistent and reliable revenue; and a system that is adaptable or able to adjust to new state laws and expectations. He said an SFA is a defined set of formulas or equations that create a funding system that meets those goals and objectives.

Next, Mr. Augenblick discussed where to begin when considering changes to a school finance formula (see page eight of Attachment A). He talked about how school finance and educational reforms fit together and about the move toward standards-based education. He discussed how states and districts measure how the education system is working, and said a procedure is established to intervene when school districts are not accomplishing state goals. What states are slow in doing, he said, is figuring out what it costs districts to implement reforms.


08:19 AM

Mr. Augenblick continued, talking about the ways states are measuring costs, describing the following models: the professional judgement model; the successful school district model; the evidenced-based model; and the statistical model. He said these models all produce a base cost that results in adjustments to a school finance formula.

Mr. Augenblick talked about cost pressures on school districts, discussing the additional cost to serve students with special needs, students who are at-risk, and students who are ELL. He said the cost in every district is different, so the research approaches come up with factors to identify the different costs in different districts. He explained that these analyses do not take into account capital needs, transportation, adult education services, or food services. Mr. Augenblick discussed the information the different research approaches produce.








08:25 AM

Mr. Silverstein next discussed how the results of a cost study might be used, noting that each district would show a different per-pupil cost due to the differences in student populations. Next, he talked about what has been done in other states, referring to page 10 of Attachment A. He explained that there have been no systematic studies designed to evaluate the impact of new funding on student performance.

Mr. Silverstein talked about how the method by which students are counted impacts an SFA. He said one of the key factors is which students are counted. Mr. Silverstein described the study on student count that was required by Senate Bill 10-008, explaining that the study looked at switching to an average daily membership (ADM) count. He said any count policy must have clear and consistent definitions of membership, enrollment, and attendance and be aligned with the audit process. Next he spoke about the need for compatible state and school district data systems.


08:33 AM

The presenters responded to committee questions. Representative Solano asked about the basic assumption around determining funding for at-risk students, asking specifically about proxies other than free and reduced-price lunch that might be used. In addition, she asked about funding as it relates to gifted and talented students. Mr. Augenblick responded, saying the starting point is deciding which students should be considered at risk. He discussed how free and reduced-price lunch came to be the main proxy used. He said the general consensus among states is that it costs more to educate at-risk students, and his work finds the weight is approximately .4. He discussed the political realities of basing at-risk funding on student performance.


08:37 AM

Senator Bacon asked for examples of how other states identify at-risk students. Mr. Augenblick responded, saying states have moved toward proxy measures, since proxies provide information about the relative position of one district compared to another. However, he said, many states would like to go back to student performance as the indicator.

Representative Hamner commented that a funding formula is only as good as the state's ability to fund it, and she asked about the SFA goal of 50 percent state and 50 percent local funding. She said the formula should be related to assessed valuation and should fluctuate as valuation fluctuates. Ms. Rainey responded, discussing the history of this issue.


















08:43 AM

Senator Hudak asked a clarifying question about the .4 weight referred to earlier by Mr. Augenblick. He referred to page 10 of Attachment A, which contains an example of how weights may be used.

Senator Heath asked the presenters to offer advice on Colorado's school funding conundrums. Mr. Augenblick responded, saying the first step is to understand what the state expects of school districts and students, and what it costs to meet these expectations. He responded to follow-up questions from Senator Heath on these issues. Mr. Augenblick said Colorado's split between state, local, and federal funding is unusual, with less local funding than may states. He said Colorado needs to figure out what the ideal proportional split would be.


08:50 AM

Ms. Rainey said it is important to think about the state accountability system and the obligation on the state to increase resources as it increases expectations.

Representative Massey thanked the presenters and the committee adjourned.