Presented to Education Subcommittee on Finance
Presented on 2/8/05
Cecile Lindquist, Past President
Christie Perkins, Public Policy Chair
Funding Committee Established
- Prior to the establishment of committee, at least three studies were done from ‘89 – ‘94.
- Independent consultants hired to work with committee.
- Data & research collected from around the state, as well as from other states.
- Stakeholders represented: Parents, advocates, teachers,business managers,
superintendents, other administrators, agency staff and others.
Inconsistent Accounting in Safety Net Applications
- Improvements were made over the years as a result of local district personnel
and others serving on the Safety Net Committee. - Safety Net Committee meets 5 times a year.
- Advocates became increasingly concerned about confusion and inconsistencies
from district to district. - 2001 – Legislature established requirement that all districts use same accounting
system for Safety Net Application.
Special Ed Funding History
- 1st one based on number of kids in a certain category, to fund one teacher
(excess cost model) - 2nd one based on ABCD formula, later added E category (Full Cost Model)
- Law Suit (Doran III) filed against Full Cost Model – Civil Rights.
- Decision allowed state to use a formula, but recognized some districts would
be over-funded and some would be under-funded and there was a need for Safety Net
in combination with formula.
Excess Cost Model Selected – ‘94
- Excess cost funds = basic ed allocation X .9309.
- Funds for each special ed student are BEA + Excess Cost dollars + federal funds + medicaid.
- Formula is easy for all to understand.
- This model is thought to be the most fair and has the least financial incentive
for labels or “place” of service delivery. - Funding index (not “cap”) identifies amount of funds automatically sent to districts.
- Safety Net available to those in need.
- As a whole, no one should have lost money, although special ed allocation looked
smaller because of elimination of back-out.
OSPI selected a federal form which demonstrates the time special ed students spend outside of basic ed.
- Advocates agreed to form, but requested a review in a couple of years.
- In 1994, the state had “backed out” an average of 45% of basic ed money and it had to be spent on special ed.
- The current form is used to calculate the percent of special ed teacher’s salary to be paid out of basic ed.
- 2003/04 advocactes found less than 20% of basic ed dollars could be accounted for as having been spent on special ed students.
- The “new” requirement of a consistent accounting system has not given us the information needed.
- There is no transparent, revenue to expenditure accounting system required of districts with regard to basic ed funds.
- There is no way to tell where the money generated by special ed students is spent.
- Coding inconsistencies are found again and again.
- Special ed students are being charged for more than their fair share of indirects and NERC’s.