Proposed
Grade Grouping and Enrollment Size Prototypes
Grade Grouping
(School Type)
|
Number of
Students
|
Elementary School
Grades K-5
|
288
|
Middle School
Grades 6-8
|
300
|
High School
Grades 9-12
|
600
|
What are the instructional
and operating components of the model?
There are five principal
categories of model components.
(1) Measures of Students
to be Schooled
The state's principal education
obligation is to students. Thus, the proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model
assumes students are the fundamental building block around which the distribution
formula is constructed. Average daily membership (ADM) is the proposed
technical measure of students.
The special characteristics
of some students may require that additional services be provided as a
part of a proper education. These additional services usually imply additional
costs. Thus, the model adjusts the amount of revenues based on the incidence
of students who are gifted, economically disadvantaged, limited English
proficient, or disabled.
(2) School Organizational
Characteristics
A prototypical school size
is needed as a foundation upon which to construct a finance distribution
model, because decisions have to be made regarding organizational arrangements,
such as number of administrators and custodians for a school. Thus, the
proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model posits schools encompassing three
grade level groupings (elementary, middle, and high school).2
The model further posits an enrollment range for each grade grouping, and
a total school size.3
(3) Instructional Components
Each prototypical school
in the model is supplied with or shares three major categories of services
and goods: personnel; supplies, materials, and equipment; and specialized
services. Quantities
and
characteristics of these services and goods vary depending upon the grade
level involved.
The major instructional item
included is personnel. Currently, personnel costs comprise 82 percent of
education dollars spent in Wyoming. This condition is unlikely to change
until such time as technology proves more effective in assisting instruction.
The most expensive single
personnel component of the Cost Based Block Grant Model is the class-size
determination. Personnel are costly, professional personnel are the most
costly, and class size determines how many professional employees are necessary.
(4) Operational Components
Operational components include
administrative costs, maintenance, and transportation.
(5) District-wide Characteristics
District-wide characteristics
include "necessary small schools," teacher seniority, and regional price
variations.
How does the Cost Based
Block Grant Model compare with current Wyoming practice?
The following chart describes
how the model compares with current Wyoming practice:
Executive Summary
Figure Two:
Cost Based Block Grant
Model Costs Components
1. Personnel
a. |
Classroom Teachers |
(Certified) |
b. |
Substitute Teachers |
(Certified) |
c. |
Instructional Aides |
(Classified) |
d. |
Pupil Support Personnel |
(Certified) |
e. |
Library/Media Personnel |
(Certif/Classified) |
f. |
School Administrators |
(Certified) |
g. |
Clerks and Data Entry Personnel |
(Classified) |
h. |
Operations/Maintenance Personnel |
(Classified) |
2. Supplies, Materials, and Equipment
a.
Supplies and materials
b.
Equipment
3. Specialized Services
a.
Food Service
b.
Student Activities
c.
Professional Development
d.
Assessment
e.
School District Operation
i.
Maintenance and Operation
ii. Administration
iii. Transportation
4. Adjustments for Special Characteristics
of Students
a.
Disabled Student Services
b.
Economically Disadvantaged Students
c.
Gifted Students
d.
Limited English Proficient Students
5. Adjustments for Special Characteristics
of Schools and Districts
a.
Small Schools
b.
Seniority
c.
Adjustment for Cost of Living
|
Executive Summary Figure
Three
Comparison of Current
Wyoming Foundation Plan and
Proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model
Comparison
Dimension |
Current
Wyoming Foundation Model |
Proposed
Block Grant |
Plenary Authority
Legal/Reality |
De Jure/State
De Facto/ Districts |
State
State |
Operational
Definition of "Proper Education" |
State
Specified Revenue Per Classroom Resource Unit (CRU) |
Assured
Opportunity to Acquire Postsecondary Prerequisites |
Unit Determining
Total District Revenue |
Local
School District |
State |
Unit Determining
Spending Priorities |
Local
School District |
Local
School District |
Unit Determining
Instructional Priorities |
Local
School District |
Local
School District |
Unit Determining
Education Related Taxes |
State/Local
District |
State |
Basic Distribution
Device |
CRU
Measures of Classrooms |
ADM
Measures of Students |
Basis for
Determining Per-Pupil Dollar Level |
Political/Historical |
Rational/Technical |
State Specified
Local District Cost Adjustments |
School
Type (E/M/H)
Small School
Transportation
Special Education |
School
Type (E/M/H)
Teacher Seniority
Small School
Pupil Characteristics
Cost Of Living
Transportation |
Discretion
for Local District to Generate Added Per-Pupil Revenue |
Yes |
Legally
Uncertain but Improbable |
Review Authority |
Wyoming
Supreme Court |
Wyoming
Supreme Court |
Administering
Agency |
Wyo. Dept.
of Education |
Wyo. Dept.
of Education |
How does the Cost-Based
Block Grant Model compare with current Wyoming practice?
The above chart describes
how the model compares with current Wyoming practice.
How can the Cost Based
Block Grant Model be implemented?
The model requires legislative
adoption. However, before official enactment, there are numerous decision
points to be incorporated into the final version. For example, the Legislature
will have to decide about class size, definitions of "necessary small schools,"
procedures for funding transportation, and procedures for funding the education
of students with special needs.
Among the decisions that
have to be made are how quickly to implement various provisions. For example,
MAP recommends that a newly suggested approach for funding special education
students be postponed at least a year, because its full benefit cannot
take effect until more precise data are collected about the number and
nature of handicapped students in Wyoming. Similarly, the existing transportation
reimbursement formula, with minor modification, should be retained until
a future time, one or two years downstream, but with refinements that will
be possible only when more precise data can be obtained. Also, the "necessary
small school" eligibility formula cannot operate effectively until a somewhat
different data base is assembled.
Another decision set regards
the initial amount of revenue a district might receive, or by what amount
it should be reduced, as a consequence of new eligibility computations.
Experience suggests that only rarely can a school district rapidly digest
huge percentages of new revenue and continue to deploy all of its resources
wisely. Hence, "a phase-in period" is often included as a school finance
implementation component.
There is regrettably little
science regarding the speed with which a district can wisely accommodate
large amounts of additional revenue. However, experience in other states
suggests that a ceiling, in year one, of 10 to 15 percent per pupil is
appropriate. Then, in year two and each year thereafter, a district might
well receive whatever additional per-pupil revenue to which it is entitled
in 10 or 15 percent increases. This increase would continue until the district
is fully compensated for the additional per-pupil block grant amount for
which it is eligible under the new formula. (In the illustrative simulations
at the end of this report, every revenue "receiving" Wyoming district could
be leveled up within no more than two years, assuming a 15 percent ceiling
on new additional revenues. It would take three years, if the ceiling were
placed at 10 percent.)
The converse is also a legislative
decision point. How much revenue can a district "lose" under a new eligibility
computation and still offer programs which do not curtail educational opportunity
for its students? Here, also, there is insufficient technical knowledge.
However, experience with budget reductions suggests that absorbing more
than a five or 10 percent decrease in a year is difficult. Thus, the Legislature
will have to deliberate regarding the speed with which revenues are reduced
for districts so affected. This process of stair-stepping revenue reductions
by tolerable increments is often labeled colloquially as a "hold harmless"
strategy. Moreover, the Legislature will have to determine whether or not
to reduce districts at all. Holding a distinct district "harmless" is also
sometimes accomplished by freezing its current per-pupil revenue levels
and not granting annual cost-of-living adjustments until other districts
in the state eligible for revenue increases gain per-pupil revenue parity.
How does the simulation
program operate?
The simulation program is
based upon a standard computerized spreadsheet (Excel). Data for each of
Wyoming's 49 local school districts for 1995-96 are placed into the computer
program. For each district the model contains total enrollments; and students'
characteristics, such as grade levels, disabilities, and household income
proxies.
The simulation model also
contains a calculating dimension for each of the previously listed 25 Cost
Based Block Grant Model instructional and operational components (e.g.,
teachers, aides, librarians, and textbooks). Each of these individual model
components has an imputed unit cost in dollars. Thus, the interaction of
a district's characteristics (e.g., number and grade levels of students)
with legislatively determined quantities of a component (e.g., class size)
can result in a computation for the an individual school's revenue eligibility
on that specific dimension. The sum of each of these computations across
all dimensions determines an entire school's revenue eligibility. Similar
computations are made for operating items which are district based (e.g.,
transportation, maintenance, administration, whether or not the district
has a "necessary small school," and numbers of disabled students). The
sum of all school revenues and all district revenues, when multiplied appropriately
by the regional cost-of-living adjustment, comprises a district's block
grant eligibility.
The simulation model lends
itself to alternative decision scenarios. For example, the Legislature
can probe the statewide financial and local district distributional consequences
of altering class size, subsidies for scale diseconomies (small schools),
and aid for students from low-income households.
Finally, the simulation model
not only can provide alternative scenarios and local district revenue eligibility
comparisons, it facilitates comparisons. A local school district's present
revenues, both in the aggregate and per pupil, are loaded into the model,
and thus, the model can be simulate comparisons of the status quo with
proposed changes.
Why and how was the
Cost Based Block Grant Model developed?
The Legislature requested
construction of such a model to comply with the Wyoming Supreme Court's
1995 decision in Campbell County v. State of Wyoming, declaring
the present financing system unconstitutional.
What, if any items,
are not included in the proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model?
The model relates to but
does not determine or restrict state and local sources of revenue
or tax rates, nor does it assume federal school funding.
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model does not currently address capital (construction) financial
needs. However, capital funding formulae can be added to the model, if
the Wyoming Legislature chooses.
The model does not
specify fiscal accounting or pupil performance mechanisms. However, it
can easily be linked to such accountability mechanisms, should the Legislature
desire.
END NOTES
1 The term "Block
Grant" is adopted from public finance wherein the label connotes an amount
of revenue made available by one level or agency of government for use
by another. Block Grants are a means by which intergovernmental subventions
can operate with only a minimum of restrictive regulation. The Cost Based
Model described in this report determines the dollar amount of a local
school district's operating revenue Block Grant. It does not dictate to
a district how to spend these revenues. "Categorical" grants are used when
intergovernmental subventions are intended to be used for specific or restricted
purposes.
2 Local school
districts are not compelled to utilize the Model's grade groupings. They
can rely upon whatever grade configuration is preferred locally. However,
revenue eligibility will assume the prototypical grade groupings presented
here (i.e. students enrolled in grade 6 will receive the middle school
allocation of funds whether they are enrolled in a K-8 school or a 6-8
middle school.)
3 Local school
districts are also not compelled to match the size of the schools outlined
here. These sizes were selected for analytical purposes. See figures 3-5
in the body of this report regarding Wyoming school size and enrollment
distribution.
I. INTRODUCTION
Unless the Wyoming Supreme
Court's 1995 decision in Campbell County v. State of Wyoming is
rescinded, a seemingly improbable event, education in Wyoming will never
again be the same. The Court's decision mandates formulation of a system
of school finance unlike any to be found elsewhere. Moreover, the Supreme
Court specified that a new system be enacted by July 1, 1997.
In this report MAP proposes
a new system. It, or a close variant, is capable of achieving the purposes
specified by the Court. It can achieve equity and transform school financing
into a rational, cost-based activity.
However, unless several other
steps are taken by the Legislature, this Cost Based Block Grant Model will
not by itself enhance student achievement in Wyoming or ensure that Wyoming's
citizens are receiving a higher return on their financial investment in
education. In other words, the Cost Based Block Grant Model, while pursuing
goals useful in its own right and mandated by the state Supreme Court,
on its own neither ensures that Wyoming schools are effective nor efficient.
It only ensures that they will be equal.
The steps necessary to push
the current system further, more aggressively, to achieve even higher levels
of student performance and system-wide productivity, are not complicated.
Furthermore, they are quite complementary; they fit well with the design
of the proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model. Many of these components
are already under consideration in various legislative committees and need
only be brought together into a comprehensive education reform package.
Meeting the Court's reform
mandates will almost assuredly necessitate higher levels of education spending.
The proposed MAP model, when coupled with more powerful accountability
and measurement components, can offer incentives for a richer reform than
the Court alone has requested.
To accomplish these multiple
purposes, the education structure, including the curriculum, school districts,
classrooms, teachers, students, textbooks, and buses, must be regarded
as a comprehensive system. Only in this way can one see how the components
currently fit and how they can be reconfigured to fit better. Only by regarding
the system in its totality can important incentives be rearranged to induce
higher achievement, not simply maintenance of the status quo.
The proposed MAP model provides
a foundation for such a comprehensive reform of Wyoming education. MAP's
proposed new system is guided by this management maxim:
"Mission, Money, and
Measurement Stem From The Top:
Methods Flow From the
Bottom."
The following describes how
the parts fit together.
Mission
In the proposed MAP model,
the Legislature specifies purposes the education system should serve. In
Wyoming, this means that every student should be provided a proper education
ensuring the ability to participate fully as a citizen and an opportunity
to seek post-secondary school options, such as college, productive employment,
or the military. This goal does provide some direction to local school
districts, but it falls short of providing the kind of precision that is
needed to motivate local schools to rethink their current practices. If
the state is to hold districts accountable for results, it has to be clear
about its expectations, and, to be effective, expectations should be explicit
about what students should know and be able to do. If the state is unwilling
to develop explicit expectations, there is little reason to predict that
schools will change in any significant way, regardless of how much additional
money they receive or how equitably it is allocated.
Money
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant rationally determines the amount of revenue per pupil necessary to
provide a "proper" education. This per-pupil amount differs depending upon
(1) circumstances of the student, e.g., grade level, physical disability,
or English proficiency, and (2) circumstances of the district, e.g., population
sparsity, seniority of teachers, and regional costs of living.
Measurement
MAP was not asked to design
an accountability system, and it has not done so. However, such a system
is essential if the Legislature is to optimize its capacity for ensuring
local districts and professional educators are achieving the purposes established
for Wyoming's schools. Schools should be held accountable only for those
things deemed most important, and the measures should be sufficiently broad
to avoid unintended behavior on the part of school districts.
Certainly, student achievement
is the centerpiece of any accountability system, and the proposed model
provides funding for that purpose. However, a faulty assessment system
is worse than no assessment system. Average scores rarely tell a whole
story, and it is also important to be able to track the performance of
students in special education and those who are low performing. In addition,
it is important to track other outcomes, such as graduation rates, employer
satisfaction, and student performance in post-secondary institutions to
determine if schools are adequately performing their mission for all students.
While student performance
is a sine qua non for the education system, the Legislature should
consider the need for enhanced fiscal accountability as well. Specifically,
under any likely funding procedure that complies with the Court's decision,
school districts' abilities to increase revenues will be severely attenuated,
if not prohibited. When local decision makers enter into long-term agreements
that are based upon uncertain projections of revenues, there is potential
for budget deficits. Thus, the accountability system should encompass financial
reporting that is sufficiently reliable to permit an early warning if a
school district might be at risk of failing to meet future obligations.
Methods
The proposed MAP model does
not prescribe detailed instructional or operational methods. These decisions
are left to local officials and professional educators. However, the Cost
Based Block Grant Model is based upon factors, such as those listed below,
that are intended to provide equitable and sufficient resources, facilitate
high performance, and expand local discretion. These components are cohesively
connected and are based on the belief that an adequately trained teacher,
working with a manageable number of students and having access to school-level
and district-level resources for special problems, is the most effective
model for coping with the educational needs of virtually all students.
Research has shown where these conditions obtain, the justification for
special programs and special funding is largely attenuated.
Small Schools
Prototypical school sizes
around which the model operates assume elementary schools of 288 students,
middle schools of 300 students, and high schools of 600 students. Further,
there are multiple provisions for computing school district revenue eligibility
in those instances in which it is necessary to operate smaller schools.
Small Classes
The model provides a professional-to-pupil
ratio that should enable a local school district, if it chooses, to operate
relatively small classes.
Added Professionals
and Paraprofessionals
The block grant provides
resources for added numbers of professional specialists and teacher aides
to assist students in special circumstances, provide for specialized instruction
in areas such as art or drama, and relieve regular classroom teachers for
added professional development.
Professional Development
Funding
The block grant provides,
should a district decide to allocate its resources in such a manner, for
professional development of teachers to enable them to instruct all students
more effectively as well as cope with students from disadvantaged circumstances,
such as those coming from low-income or English-deficient backgrounds.
Specialized Student
Funding
The block grant includes
added revenues for districts with concentrations of handicapped, gifted,
and low-income students. In time, revenues for those students whose incidence
in the population is predictable, i.e. handicapped and gifted, should be
provided in a block grant manner, using what is known technically as a
"Census" approach, so that districts can themselves identify such students
and decide the most effective manner for educating them.
Local districts are granted
the freedom to weave their revenues into a spending pattern best suited
to their particular circumstances and mix of students. However, the above-listed
and related formula components have a synergy and integrity to them. Small
schools and small classes, particularly when coupled with teacher professional
development, should enable a district to provide a better education to
all students, especially those needing more help, such as the disabled
or those suffering from some other known disadvantage.
If the Legislature should
decide to dilute the block grant approach, it should further realize that
the synergy of the model is jeopardized. For example, to specify a portion
of the block grant to be spent mandatorily for teachers' salaries is not
simply to usurp local control. It will also likely throw out of balance
whatever class-size decisions or whatever arrangements for using teaching
specialists a district has made. Similarly, by mandating class sizes, the
Legislature may undercut previously made salary agreements. Mandating spending
levels for vocational education may jeopardize the budget for a district-designed
gifted student program. In sum, the block grant possesses an integrity
which places operating decisions locally for good reason. To interrupt
this integrity at the state level is likely to have unanticipated, unfavorable
consequences for local districts.
The manner in which the Legislature
can continue to exercise appropriate "control" is through intense attention
to specifying outcomes and measuring the degree to which districts achieve
them. In effect, the Legislature's control is through appraising "products"
— not specifying procedures.
A reader should not be misled
into believing that enacting and sustaining a block grant system is easy.
It will not be. Additionally, establishing means for measuring student
learning and using such measures in an accountability system will necessitate
added planning.
Also, continually appraising
outcomes will necessitate enhancing the capacity of the Wyoming Department
of Education. Its capacity to design measurement systems, collect data,
oversee a more detailed financial accounting system, and provide advice
to local school districts will almost assuredly call for added personnel
and resources. Similarly, additional resources will be necessary to improve
Wyoming's executive-branch capacity to conduct cost-of-living studies.
The Major Challenge
Under the proposed model,
it no longer is productive to inform local school-district officials how
to spend money. For the Legislature to specify spending purposes, e.g.,
to set class size minima or maxima, establish teacher salaries, or specify
teaching methods, is to eviscerate its ability to hold local school systems
accountable for results. Should the Legislature specify how to spend money,
it then is specifying methods and, consequently, cannot fairly praise or
blame local officials and professional educators for succeeding in or failing
to achieve results.
The reason this proposed
plan is labeled a "Cost Based Block Grant" is to convey the idea that the
Legislature has rationally determined the amount of revenue to be made
available and has, thereafter, provided these financial resources to local
authorities for their use in fulfilling state-specified education objectives.
A "block grant" implies an intergovernmental flow of funds, specific use
of which is at the discretion of the receiving agency. (Conversely, a "categorical
grant" connotes legislative mandates;
the revenue must be used
for the activities specified.)
Meeting this "hands off"
challenge will prove difficult for at least two reasons. On one hand, the
Legislature will soon find itself responsible for generating virtually
all of Wyoming's education revenues. Thus, why should it not take the initiative
in specifying how such revenues should be spent? Whereas this rhetorical
question is reasonable, the answer, as provided above, is that to do so
erodes the ability to foster effective schools and to hold local officials
accountable.
This challenge is made doubly
difficult because special interest groups will seek endlessly to have their
particular programs protected, excluded from the block grant, and mandated
by the Legislature. These groups will regularly appear before the Legislature
and claim that whereas local control through a block grant is important
and fine for most activities, their particularly precious activity is too
important to be left to the discretion of local officials. Thus, (insert
whatever favorite program you wish) should be converted to a categorical
aid measure, which local school district officials are mandated or induced
to offer without a choice.
This is a slippery slope
from which there is little recovery. The end product will be a highly complicated
school finance statute, specifying virtually every local district spending
action. Under such a scenario, the Wyoming Department of Education is likely
to be transformed into a huge monitoring and compliance agency, and the
Legislature will have a mounting number of special sessions to deal with
problems which formerly were solved at the local district level.
The solution to such a situation
is to resist the temptation to mandate and to maintain the integrity of
the block grant approach.
The integrity and comprehensive
nature of the proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model extends to matters
of future change and annual adjustments. Each year, or each biennium, the
Wyoming Legislature need only determine by what amount, if any, education
should receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). The entire formula can
then be multiplied by whatever COLA factor results from legislative deliberations.
No single factor within the formula need be altered, except under conditions
specified in the following paragraph.
If evidence arises in support
of some instructional or operational component not now included in the
model, or if new, more accurate information becomes available, then the
Legislature can add or alter what exists. For example, if a remarkably
more productive, technologically based instructional strategy presents
itself so that all Wyoming students undoubtedly would benefit from it,
then it could be included as a formula component. Short of such a resounding
innovation or research finding, the formula's components are better left
intact, because they currently possess a self-reinforcing synergistic character.
Accommodating a Legislatively
Determined "Basket" of Goods and Services
The Campbell County decision
does not interfere with the Legislature's ability to determine the purposes
and content of Wyoming's public education system. Hence, there are curricular
and service components about which the Legislature has deliberated and
may wish to include in the state's schools. How would the proposed Cost
Based Block Grant Model accommodate such a "basket" of preferred provisions?
The general answer is "quite easily."
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model is intended to be a policy vehicle, enabling Wyoming simultaneously
to comply with the Supreme Court's decision regarding equity and rationality
and enhance the quality of schooling throughout the state. The model is
simply a means for delivering whatever instructional purposes and content
objectives the Legislature designs. There should be no conflict.
II. WHAT THE COURT DECREED
AND HOW THE LEGISLATURE RESPONDED
Since 1890, when Wyoming
joined the Union as the 44th state, locally elected Wyoming school board
members have annually exercised their judgment about taxes and spending.
Like their counterparts throughout most of the United States, some decisions
were stingy, others were generous, and most fell in between. Once every
two years, statewide elected officials engaged in similar deliberations
and made judgments regarding the state's share of the financial bill for
supporting schools. This two-tiered decision process has historically resulted
in most of the money available to support a Wyoming student's schooling.
Prominent features of the
above-described system are about to disappear. The Court has decreed that
a new system must replace it, and that this system must meet certain standards.
In effect, the Court has required that the balance of decision making for
Wyoming education financing be shifted from a political to a rational framework.
Taken together, the recent
Campbell County and earlier Washakie1 decisions have the following
principal implications for education's operating revenues:2
-
Education has been ruled to
be a fundamental right accruing to all state residents under the Wyoming
Constitution.
-
Because of education's fundamental
standing, the state must assume plenary responsibility for ensuring an
equal and proper education for each Wyoming student.
-
Consequently, for school financing
purposes, Wyoming's education system must now be regarded as a state system,
not as a loosely coupled collection of independent, local school districts.
-
The quality of a Wyoming child's
schooling should not be a function of wealth, other than the wealth of
the state as a whole.
-
Local school district education
revenue eligibility should be a function of rationally discerned costs
related to schooling.3
Implications for Wyoming
School Finance.
Few other states have been
subjected to the same wrenching level of school finance reform as now required
by Wyoming's Supreme Court decisions.4 What is necessary to
comply with the Court is the complete redesign of a system which heretofore
has depended principally upon revenue determining decisions rendered by
local school boards and state distribution formula arrangements, which
are only loosely related to actual school district operating costs. The
new system, to reduce revenue disparities to those rooted solely in "costs,"
will have to be based upon state-level decisions and will have to take
into account complicating conditions such as:
-
Differences in characteristics
of students, including their level of schooling (elementary, middle, and
secondary), physical disabilities, English-language deficiencies, and social
and economic circumstances which might place them educationally at risk.
-
A rationally determined set
of educationally related goods and services, including the number and remuneration
of teachers and other education professionals, supplies, computers, books,
and school administrators.
-
Day-to-day school operating
costs, including utilities; maintenance; and the salaries of essential
workers, such as custodians, clerks, bus drivers, and cafeteria employees.
-
Cost-related differences in
the characteristics of schools and school districts, over which they have
little influence, including population density, regional cost-of-living
differentials, and proportion of their teacher work force that is senior
(and thus more costly).
Designing a new school finance
system will necessitate a different outlook on the part of Wyoming's citizens;
elected officials, including local school board members; and professional
educators. Henceforth, every one of the state's 49 school districts will
be under even more intense pressure to ensure that its quality of instruction
is sufficient to meet the goal of a post-secondary option for each student.
Each district will have to meet this objective within the revenue boundaries
made available by the state. Continued reliance upon additional, locally
generated revenues is an uncertain and unlikely prospect.
Inevitably, under a completely
redesigned school finance distribution model, some Wyoming districts will
receive more revenue than they do now. Just as inevitably, other districts
will receive less revenue. Technical mechanisms exist both for rationally
leveling up low-spending districts, and holding high-spending districts
harmless until the overall state-level distribution catches up with the
present level of spending. Whether or not such arrangements will be acceptable
to the Legislature and, perhaps ultimately, the state Supreme Court is
not now known.
The Wyoming Legislature's
Response
The Legislature proceeded
on two fronts to address the Court's decision. Six joint committees,
drawing upon the expertise of both houses of the Legislature, were assigned
component tasks related to developing a school finance system calculated
to meet the Court's requirements. A Select Committee was formed to oversee
and coordinate the work of the other five committees and to consolidate
committee recommendations into a single bill. The Education Committee;
the Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Committee; the Capital
Construction Committee; the Revenue Committee; and the Appropriations Committee
were all assigned responsibility for facets of school finance system design.
The work of these committees began early in 1996 and proceeded into 1997.
Simultaneously, under the
direction of legislative leadership, legislative staff sought and received
expert advice and assistance from the National Council of State Legislatures,
Education Commission of the States, and Mid-Continent Regional Educational
Laboratory. Additional expertise was sought from an independent contractor.
In March 1996, legislative staff were directed to develop a process to
procure the services of an independent consultant to conduct a "Cost of
Education" study. On April 16, 1996 a request for qualifications (RFQ)
was sent to potential bidders. The number of prospective bidder responses
to that RFQ was judged inadequate, and a modified RFQ was distributed to
potential consultants on May 21, 1996. On July 16, 1996 Management Analysis
& Planning Associates, L.L.C. (MAP) was selected as the contractor
to conduct the study. Work proceeded immediately, and this report is a
product of that effort.5
END NOTES
1 The Wyoming
Supreme Court's 1995 decision, Campbell County v. State of Wyoming, stands
on the shoulders of a prior state supreme court decision, Washakie County
School District Number One v. Herschler. In this latter case, decided in
1980, the Wyoming school finance system was also declared unconstitutional.
In the 1995 Campbell decision, the Court ruled that legislative compliance
with Washakie had been insufficient and, thus, specified that a more restricted
time schedule be imposed for constitutional compliance. Hence, the Court's
imposition of the above mentioned 1997 schedule deadline by which the legislature
is expected to enact a new statewide KÐ12 school finance system. (See
Campbell County School District; et al., vs. State of Wyoming: et al.,
94-136 and 606 P. 2d 310 (Wyo., 1980)).
2 These effects
also apply to capital funding. However, this report and set of proposals,
by agreement with the Legislature, does not address capital funding matters.
3 A question remains
about whether a local school district can raise revenue in excess of whatever
a new state distribution formula determines to be its eligible level. The
Wyoming Supreme Court opinion in Campbell may have left the door slightly
ajar regarding local school district discretionary spending in excess of
some state determined base dollar amount. However, if so, the practical
taxing arrangements by which such discretionary local level revenue generation
would be judicially tolerated appear unusually constrained.
4 California in
its various equal protection decisions stemming from the first decision
in Serrano v. Priest, ( 557 P. 2d 929 Cal 1976) has been required to comply
with a rigorous per pupil spending equalization provision. However, in
California, the Court has permitted an approximate $400 per pupil expenditure
band within which district's are expected to fall. Additionally, the California
Court has permitted approximately five percent of the state's enrollments
to fall outside of that band. For now, Wyoming appears to have nowhere
near such judicially tolerable per pupil spending discretion, other than
spending differences attributable to identifiable operating costs. Moreover,
California's compliance with Serrano has never been conditioned upon the
development of a rationally based cost of education formula.
5 The Wyoming
Legislative Service Office publishes a periodic newsletter detailing the
progress of the overall effort to meet the dictates of the Court's decision.
See "Education Reform Newsletter," various editions. The LSO also maintains
a web site on which reports appear electronically. The web site address
is
http://legisweb.state.wy.us
III. THE MODEL'S PURPOSES
The alternative school finance
arrangements contained in this proposed model are intended to:
Encourage high quality
instruction for Wyoming students.
The model has been specifically
designed to ensure a "proper education," one tailored for today's circumstances
and for what can be reasonably anticipated in the future. What this means
is that the resources distribution formula is geared to provide sufficient
opportunity for each Wyoming student to acquire the knowledge and skills
required for a post-secondary school option. This opportunity includes
having access to the prerequisites for admission to the University of Wyoming
and similar post-secondary activities, for acquiring additional technical
skills, or for entering the work force.1
Provision of resources, of
course, does not itself guarantee high quality instruction. Resources are
necessary, but by themselves they are insufficient for a good education.
However, the Cost Based Block Grant Model is deliberately designed to be
consistent with other components of a high-performing education system,
e.g., decision discretion by local communities and education professionals,
appropriate assessment of student performance, means for productive staff
development for teachers and administrators, and the possibility for remedial
action in the event of persistent school failure.
Treat students equitably.
If this or a similar model
is adopted, the educational opportunity of Wyoming's students will no longer
be conditioned by local property wealth or local school district taxation
preferences. All students will be guaranteed access to resources sufficient
to acquire an education consistent with what is anticipated as the needs
and conditions of the 21st century. Moreover, the proposed model takes
notice of and deliberately allocates higher resource levels in instances
where students suffer from conditions such as recognized disabilities,
economic disadvantage, or rural isolation.2
Maximize local control,
consistent with the Court's mandates.
The proposed new model does
not ensure each local school district the same kind and quantity of revenue-related,
decision-making discretion it now possesses. Under the proposed model,
school districts would no longer control their overall spending levels
and taxation rates. Such local district discretion appears to be precluded
by the Wyoming Supreme Court decision in the Campbell County case. The
proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model attempts to preserve every other
local school district prerogative, particularly the ability for local officials
and professional educators to determine the manner in which state-generated
revenues are spent. The proposed model makes assumptions regarding myriad
operational components, such as school size, class size, kinds of needed
education professionals, teacher salaries, textbooks, computers, and utilities.
However, these assumptions are made to ensure that a complete educational
delivery system has been fully and rationally costed. These assumptions
are not intended to bind local officials to the same model elements
when they exercise their judgment in operating local schools and classrooms.
Rather, the components are intended to have a synergistic effect. By paying
careful attention to the deployment of its resources, a local Wyoming district
should be able to enhance its students' performance.
Preserve professional
prerogatives of Wyoming's educators.
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model assumes that the Legislature will specify the goals of the Wyoming
education system and then specify resource levels to enable local districts
to achieve such goals. However, from that point forward, the finance model
is pedagogically agnostic. It retains for educators the decisions they
have traditionally been entrusted to make regarding the best manner in
which to instruct students and the materials to be used in the process.
Prove understandable
to laypersons and education professionals.
Making the model understandable
is a heroic challenge. The current Wyoming school finance system, like
its counterpart in most states, is extremely difficult to understand. The
proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model assuredly will have many technical
features. However, its basic components are relatively easy to understand.
There are only five necessary steps: (1) Each school district in the state
keeps records by grade level of its student enrollments (Average Daily
Membership). (2) These data are then used to determine the numbers of teachers,
counselors, administrators, supplies, texts, computers, and other instructional
and operational items needed to provide a proper education. (3) If students
have special characteristics, such as physical disabilities, an adjustment
is made to ensure added resources. (4) Thereafter, adjustments are made
for teacher seniority, "necessary small schools," and regional cost-of-living
differences. (5) "Costs" are imputed to all appropriate factors in each
of these steps. Finally, the sum of these factors taken together determines
a school district's state-guaranteed revenues.
Possess flexibility
to encompass needs of 49 local school districts.
Many states do not possess
the extremes of geographic diversity and population distribution that characterize
Wyoming. These and other complicated features manifest themselves in a
spectrum of grade-level configurations, school sizes, staff deployment
patterns, transportation routes, and other school operating features. The
proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model acknowledges this complexity and
contains features that permit multiple adjustments to accommodate these
unique school and school district situations.
Accommodate appropriate
changes in future years.
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model is easy to amend or adapt. In the simplest of worlds, the Wyoming
Legislature need only decide each session if it believes a cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) is in order and determine the amount. Such a multiplier
could then be applied as the final step in the Cost Based Block Grant Model
computations. Other relatively uncomplicated technical and administrative
steps need be taken annually by the Wyoming Department of Education or
other administering agency.
Additionally, however, if
the Legislature believes that some fundamental new knowledge regarding
education has been discerned, and the legislators wish to incorporate this
feature into the model itself, they can easily do so without eviscerating
the other parts of the model in the process.
Similarly, if school or school
district conditions now addressed in the model, such as "necessary small
schools," are altered by virtue of population growth or shifts or changes
in school district boundary configurations, then a component of the model
can be altered without disturbing the equilibrium of other model components.
Prove defensible in
a court of law.
Whether or not the proposed
Cost Based Block Grant Model or some other new finance model is adopted
by the Legislature, almost assuredly some kind of school finance system
change appears necessary in light of the Campbell County Court decision.
Of course, almost all districts
receive less funding than their advocates believe they need. More troublesome
yet, school finance changes inevitably have a redistributive effect; some
districts either get more or less than they did previously, or some districts
get more than others. Modern America often depends upon the judicial system
to resolve some of the accompanying conflicts. Thus, litigation over a
new school finance plan of the magnitude required in Wyoming seems almost
a foregone conclusion.
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model has been constructed in anticipation of a legal challenge. It attempts
to comply with reasoned interpretations of the Court's decision in Campbell.
Also, it has been constructed so that components can be mixed, matched,
or added, still permitting the model to retain its essential integrity.
Thus, should a Court find one or more components unsatisfactory, there
is a chance that the overall strategy might still be left intact, avoiding
costly and time-consuming redesign efforts.
END NOTES
1 This and similar
outcomes to be expected of the state's education system are currently undergoing
formal consideration by the Wyoming Legislature.
2 The unique circumstances
of small rural high schools and their inability to offer the same spectrum
of courses as urban high schools was brought forcefully to MAP's attention.
Scale enables large schools and schools operated by large enrollment districts,
to offer subject-matter electives that may elude small and remote schools
and districts.
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model addresses the problem. However, advocates for "necessary small schools,"
may never be totally satisfied. A high school of 2,000 to 3,000 students
will have sufficient enrollment to offer a wider range of courses, such
as Japanese language and Advanced Placement history. Whatever the nature
of preferred electives, the model attempts to balance the scales by providing
"necessary small schools" and districts with added resources that may be
used for specialist teachers, or for technological linkages and distance
learning opportunities. Even with substantial new resources, very small
schools will be unable to offer a wide array of courses. MAP makes no case
that distance learning is as fulfilling as a good instructor in an actual
classroom. However, MAP does contend that distance learning alternatives
are better than no learning alternatives at all.
Finally, the sense of community
integrity, personal intimacy, and social cohesion that frequently characterizes
small high schools is in itself a valuable asset, which many students in
large high schools do not experience. Furthermore, while not having been
charged to explore the matter intensely, MAP discerns no significant diminution
in the capacity of graduates of Wyoming's small high schools to gain entry
to post-secondary institutions.
IV. CAVEATS: WHAT THIS
REPORT DOES NOT COVER
There are components of Wyoming
education and school finance which deliberately are not addressed
in this report. By explicit agreement with the Wyoming Legislature, this
report:
-
Does not dictate operating decisions
and actions to local school district officials and professional educators.
-
Does not address means for generating
education revenues.
-
Has implications for—but does
not directly address—tax rates, impact, or incidence.
-
Does not address capital (construction)
resources.
-
Does not directly address school
district organization or governance.
-
Does not address specific
instructional
strategies, curricular programs, or performance procedures.
-
Does not alter directly federal
government school aid distribution.
-
Only obliquely, and through
recommendations for future changes needed in support of the proposed new
financing system, addresses state-level administrative procedures, such
as accounting mechanisms.
-
Does not provide the details
of an accountability system.
The Cost Based Block Grant Model
cannot guarantee that a student will learn, only that he or she will have
an opportunity to learn, an opportunity no longer conditioned by variations
in local property wealth or levels of taxation. However, when it comes
to individual levels of student performance, as with most human endeavors,
matters of motivation, tastes, and ability will continue to play a large
role.
V. THE REPORT'S ANALYTIC
PROCEDURES
To prepare this report and
to construct the proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model, MAP consultants
engaged in the following activities and processes.
Review of Research
Regarding Effective Schooling
MAP reviewed education research
findings with school finance implications. This research is, obviously,
a subset of all research. For example, there is a coherent body of literature
about improving education outcomes, such as setting high standards for
students, engaging students directly in their learning, involving parents
in their children's schooling, and achieving consensus among school personnel
regarding the goals of an education program. Research about such matters
is important. However, it has little direct bearing on school finance.
Conversely, research about
matters such as school and class size, teacher training and experience
levels, and use of instructional technology both influences instruction
and has school finance implications. Thus, it is this latter category into
which MAP delved more deeply.
Education research results
do not tightly dictate instructional practices or education policy. Regrettably,
education, while consistently becoming a more technically understood endeavor,
is still far from a science. Thus, MAP's research findings serve to establish
best practice boundaries within which one can assure the policy community
that students will be advantaged. However, these boundary areas or zones
do not lend themselves to equations, such as "class sizes of one student
less will lead to an additional month of reading progress for pupils."
There simply are too many intervening variables to arrive at such conclusions.
MAP's research review enables
this report to assure policy makers, at a minimum, that they will do no
harm if they operate within a sphere of best practice in areas such as
school and class size. More positively yet, these research findings can
be used by state policy makers to be confident that the more they weigh
their decisions toward the positive side of a zone of best practice, the
more likely they will further the educational opportunity of Wyoming students.
Convening Wyoming Education
Experts
Relying upon the good offices
of state officials and local school district educators, MAP convened several
groups of Wyoming education experts representing major categories of professional
practice and experience. These all-day meetings (held over a week-long
period of time) involved teachers, counselors, principals, business managers,
and superintendents from elementary, middle, and high schools; from large
and small districts; and from rural and urban areas of the state. Participation
required that the individual invitees possess a master's degree and have
five years of employment in a comparable position.
No claim is made that these
groups represented a scientifically selected sample of Wyoming educators.
Rather, what was sought was a broad cross section of professional opinion
and experience regarding crucial components of instruction and school operation.
To the extent possible, these educators reflected the regional and size
diversity of Wyoming's schools and school districts. The principal question
posed to participants was, "What in your judgment are key components required
to provide effective instruction, to enable students to acquire the prerequisites
to enter the University of Wyoming, or to have access to other attractive
post-secondary endeavors?"
Participants' initial responses
differed depending upon their professional perspectives. No effort was
made to reach perfect accord. Deliberately, no votes were taken. Nevertheless,
general agreement was reached that proposed components in the models were
appropriate. These components are also consistent with research findings
and notions of best practice.
Consultation with Wyoming
educators continued throughout this report's development. MAP representatives
met with school district superintendents who reviewed and critiqued the
study's methodology. School district business managers and representatives
of the Wyoming Department of Education confirmed the validity of MAP data.
Revisions to models were proposed and carefully considered. Appropriate
changes were incorporated. These exchanges enhanced understanding of many
of the unique features of Wyoming's public schools, and the resultant product
was significantly improved by this process.
If other expert groups, similarly
representative, were assembled, would they reach identical conclusions?
Possibly, or possibly not. There is no reason to believe that a panel of
education professionals will be any more or less in agreement than experts
in other technical fields, such as medicine or engineering. What can be
said with confidence is that any similar panels would likely concur that
specific components now included in the proposed Cost Based Block Grant
Model are appropriate. If such experts disagreed, it might be over quantities
within any component category. Such disagreement would be found among physicians
debating angioplasty versus chemical or surgical treatments of cardiovascular
disease. Technical disagreement is not by itself grounds for dismissal
of results or an assertion of unscientific behavior.
Consultation with National
Professional Associations
MAP consulted many of the
national associations and professional organizations regarding matters
of best practice and professional standards. These conversations were aimed
at refining instructional components emerging from the deliberations of
Wyoming's expert educators, as described above, and from MAP's distillation
of research results.
Among the organizations with
which MAP conferred were the American Library Association, National Board
of Professional Teaching Standards, National Council for Accrediting Teacher
Education, American Association of College and Teacher Education, National
Council of Teachers of English, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Chief State
School Officers, National Education Association, the American Federation
of Teachers, and National Staff Development Council.
Compilation and Syntheses
of Best Practices from Other States
MAP sought information from
other states which have had experience in attempting to construct a resource-based
education finance model. MAP also conferred with officials from other states
regarding reimbursement formulae for matters such as "necessary small schools"
and pupil transportation. The states with which MAP has compared Wyoming
or sought additional information which might apply in Wyoming are: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island,
and Tennessee.
Visits to a Representative
Sample of Wyoming's School Districts
MAP sent teams of trained
observers and data collectors to 29 of Wyoming's 49 local school districts.
A sampling matrix was constructed by which all 49 districts were arrayed
in strata according to the size of their enrollment. Within each enrollment
band, districts were randomly selected to ensure that every district of
an approximately equal size had an equal chance of being visited. To obtain
a view of education in Wyoming, MAP over-sampled the number of visited
districts. (National public opinion polling results are usually, and accurately,
based on a sample of 900 to 1100 citizens, a minuscule percentage of the
total U.S. population of 267 million.) MAP might have been able to generalize
to the state from a substantially smaller sample than 29 districts. Still,
given the complexity of the state, erring on the side of inclusion seemed
a sensible way to proceed. The 29-district sample included 83 percent
of the school children in Wyoming.
Each of the 29 sample districts
was visited by a MAP researcher. The purpose of the visits was threefold.
First, it was important to determine firsthand the extent to which the
expert-generated list of instructional components might actually fit an
operating school district. Second, MAP was interested in learning about
local conditions that might need to be taken into account when designing
components of the model. A third reason for the site visits was to collect
quantitative information to be used in determining statewide costs for
a variety of instructional components.
Collection of Education-Related
Data from Wyoming Districts
MAP sought information from
all of Wyoming's districts on selected dimensions, such as teachers' salaries,
class sizes, and an assortment of budget categories. MAP also reviewed
the data and findings previously collected in connection with trials in
the Campbell County case.
Consultations with
Wyoming State Officials and Other Experts
Throughout the six months
during which MAP engaged in this analytic process, there has been a constant
dialogue with Wyoming administrative officials regarding data matters and
the operation of current school finance and cost-of-living measurement
provisions.
Sources of Data for
Imputing Revenue Values to the Cost Based Block Grant Model
Revenue values were derived
principally from current Wyoming cost experiences with components of the
proposed model. These current costs were obtained from school district
expenditure reports, from Wyoming Department of Education data, and from
data about Wyoming collected by national organizations, such as the National
Center for Education Statistics and the National Education Association.
(The relationship of such expenditures to true costs is discussed in a
subsequent section of this report.)
Procedures for Gathering
Information Regarding Wyoming's Consumer Price Index
Fortunately, Wyoming already
prepares a semi-annual index of consumer prices for each county of the
state. It is published by the Department of Administration and Information,
and it is designed for use by the Department of Revenue to calculate county
poverty levels to administer exemptions from property tax liability for
homeowners whose income is below the poverty line in that county. The Department
of Administration and Information utilizes the relative importance (weights)
in a consumer market basket that are developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
in its construction of the nationally assembled Consumer Price Index.
The Wyoming index is revised
on an continuing basis, utilizing purchasing patterns of consumers in Cheyenne,
based on systematic observations by Department of Administration and Information
officials. The Department employs (on a contract basis) price checkers
in 15 communities throughout the state, and these price checkers report
price changes to the Department on 140 market basket items every six months.
It then calculates a statewide index, based on these 15 communities. The
index numbers for 15 counties are based on the price levels of the community
surveyed in that county. Index numbers for the other eight counties are
in an arithmetic relationship to the first 15, based on demographic and
economic similarities between the surveyed and unsurveyed communities.
It is these cost-of-living
(COL) data that MAP has relied upon to adjust revenues for which Wyoming
school districts will be eligible. As explained in greater detail later
in this report, the COL technology is new and, as of now, used only in
a few states for school finance purposes. Almost assuredly, it will need
to be fine tuned over time.
VI. STRUCTURE OF WYOMING'S
CURRENT EDUCATION SYSTEM
Wyoming relies upon local
school districts as the operational government unit responsible for the
delivery of education to students. The 49 local school districts in Wyoming
are located in the state's 23 counties. This is a vastly smaller number
of districts, spread over a vastly larger land area, than is typical for
other states in the nation. Having such a slender number of districts,
covering such large geographic areas, gives an advantage to Wyoming in
striving for an equitable school finance system. States with many geographically
small districts exhibit wider local property wealth disparities than Wyoming,
often making their pursuit of finance equality even more difficult.
Districts and Schools
In terms of student enrollments,
most of Wyoming's local school districts are small. Twenty-five districts
enroll fewer than 1,000 students. While the median-size school district
in the United States is approximately 2,000 students, the median-size district
in Wyoming enrolls 998 students.
However, most of Wyoming's
students are in larger districts; approximately 20 percent of the state's
districts enroll 50 percent of the state's students (see Figure One).
A similar dichotomy emerges
for Wyoming's schools. Most schools are small. However, most students attend
larger schools. For example, Figures Two through Four display the
distribution of schools and enrollments, by size of school, for elementary,
middle, and high schools. Thirty-one percent of the state's elementary
schools contain 100 or fewer students. Conversely, only five percent of
the state's students are enrolled in these small schools. More than 80
percent of Wyoming's elementary students attend schools that have 200 students
or more. Indeed, more than 20 percent of students attend elementary schools
that are larger than 400 students.
Similar patterns emerge for
both middle and high schools. Almost 60 percent of Wyoming's high schools
enroll 200 or fewer students. However, these schools, in the aggregate,
accommodate less than 15 percent of the state's total high school enrollment.
Many of Wyoming's small (low
enrollment) schools are a function of population sparsity, where students
have to travel unusually long distances and for long amounts of time each
day to reach their schools. These "necessary small schools" are taken into
account as an added cost feature in the proposed Cost Based Block Grant
Model.
Figure One
School District Size and
Enrollment Distribution
Figure Two
Elementary School Size
and Enrollment Distribution
Figure Three
Middle School Size and
Enrollment Distribution
Figure Four
High School Size and Enrollment
Distribution
VII. WYOMING'S PRESENT
SCHOOL FINANCE ARRANGEMENTS
Technically speaking, Wyoming's
current school finance distribution system, which has been found to be
unconstitutional, is known as a "Foundation Plan." This type of plan is
the most widespread school finance arrangement in the nation. A "Foundation
Plan" defines "adequate" or "proper" in terms of per-pupil or classroom
spending levels. If a school district spends at least the state-specified
minimum amount per pupil or per classroom, it is said to have provided
students with a "foundation" which, presumptively, ensures equality of
educational opportunity. "Foundation Plan" minimum spending levels are
seldom derived from a rational cost analysis of what an individual pupil
actually needs by way of an instructional package. Rather, the state- specified
foundation amount almost always is politically expedient, constructed upon
last year's statewide spending averages and what the state treasury can
afford in the forthcoming year.
In most states, Wyoming presently
included, school districts are permitted to spend more than the state-defined
"foundation" by generating additional local revenues from discretionary
property taxation. It is the interaction of two school financing conditions
that results in Court-disapproved interdistrict spending disparities. One
factor is the ability of some school districts to spend more than the foundation
amount by taxing local property wealth. Also, Wyoming's existing formulaic
reliance upon "Classroom Resource Units" (CRUs), and their somewhat arbitrary
"Divisors," results in distributional inequities which have been found
by the Wyoming Supreme Court to be insufficiently related to the actual
costs of providing schooling.
Such inequalities have triggered
a quarter of a century of litigation and legislative action throughout
the United States. The Washakie decision and the 1995 Wyoming Supreme Court
decision in Campbell County are part of this trend. Throughout the nation,
state courts have been evenly divided in their decisions to overturn or
sustain foundation plans. A 1973 United States Supreme Court case,
Rodriquez
v. San Antonio,1 determined that education is not a fundamental
right, and interdistrict spending differences are acceptable under the
federal Constitution.
Current Wyoming mechanisms
for financing school district operation were enacted initially in 1983.
Each subsequent legislative session has resulted in minor amendments; however,
the fundamental framework has remained intact. The following lists the
principal components of Wyoming's current 'Foundation Plan." Components
of the plan which the trial court found unconstitutional are noted with
asterisks. The Wyoming Supreme Court found the entire plan unconstitutional.
-
ADM--A measure of the
number of pupils served by the district. This is known as Average Daily
Membership.
-
CRU--A computation by
which a district's ADM is converted to "Classroom Resource Units."
-
Divisors*--A school district's
total number of CRUs is determined, principally, by dividing district enrollment
(ADM) using legislatively specified "Divisors." Divisors are different
for elementary, middle, and high school levels. The Legislature can alter
this ratio depending upon its judgment and the availability of state revenues.
-
Isolation--CRU computations
also take into account size of schools and distances from population centers.
These factors can increase the number of CRUs, absent strict consideration
of a district's ADM counts. In effect, Wyoming now has a small school factor.
However, it is not a "necessary" small school factor. It is missing a definition
of "necessary."
-
Entitlements--Specific
application of the above-listed factors results in a determination of a
local school district's operating budget for state-aid eligibility. In
effect, these computations determine eligibility for an entitlement of
state funding.
-
Dollar Value--The Wyoming
Legislature annually determines the dollar value of a CRU. For 1995-96,
that amount is $92,331.
-
Mandatory Tax Rate--If
the local application of a legislatively determined minimum property tax
rate fails to generate sufficient revenues to cover the "Foundation," a
local district is eligible for a state entitlement subsidy.2
-
Local Option Tax Rates*--Local
school boards, sometimes requiring permission of the local electorate,
can impose added property taxes, the use of which is directed by the Legislature
to be allocated to operation and capital outlay.
-
Recapture*--Districts
in which the application of the legislatively determined local property
tax rate generates revenues in excess of 109 percent of the computed "foundation"
amount are subject to "recapture." Payment of the excess revenue, amounts
in excess of 109 percent of the "foundation," is made to the state for
redistribution to other, subsidy-entitled school districts.
-
Categorical Aid
--
Both Wyoming state government and the federal government award added revenues
to local school districts for specific kinds of programs (e.g., school
breakfasts and lunches, vocational education) and for specific kinds of
students judged to be in need of higher-cost services (e.g., disabled students).
Several of these various formula
components contributed, in the eyes of the Court, to revenue inequalities
and irrationalities. Principally, the CRU's "Divisors" were discovered
to bear an insufficient relationship to actual numbers of students to be
schooled and the costs of schooling them.3 Also, the interaction
of features, such as mandatory taxes, local option levies, and the recapture
provision, permitted some districts to have access to greater revenue than
others simply by virtue of their local property wealth advantage.
MAP has not been called upon
to undertake a systematic examination of the distributional and tax burden
consequences of the existing formula. However, in the course of analytic
efforts undertaken in connection with the design of the Cost Based Block
Grant Model, Campbell trial court findings regarding the inequality of
revenue distribution became strikingly apparent. The existing finance formula
provides a disproportionate advantage to small school districts with small
schools to the detriment of large enrollment school districts with larger
schools.
Wyoming's current "Foundation
Plan" and the Cost Based Block Grant Model differ on significant dimensions.
Most of the differences spring from two fundamental decisions contained
in the state's Supreme Court Campbell County opinion. First, the Court
specifies that, under the Wyoming Constitution, education is a fundamental
right and, at least for school finance purposes, Wyoming is a "Unitary
System." As a result, state government must now take plenary responsibility
for ensuring that each schoolchild has equal access to an adequate system
of education. Second, whereas local school districts retain an important,
indeed a crucial role, in the delivery of instruction, they no longer are
principally responsible for determining spending levels.
These two conditions necessitate
a new school finance distribution system. The new system relies more heavily
upon the state to ensure equality and resources sufficient to ensure a
proper education. The system also relies more heavily upon a set of rational
and technical processes for discerning the level of available revenue.
It should be noted particularly, however, that there is nothing in the
Campbell County decision which needs to be construed as limiting the ability
of local school districts to make fundamental decisions regarding how to
deliver instruction and how to spend their resources to do so. In other
words, fundamental forms of local control can remain intact.
It is also worth noting that
nothing in the Supreme Court's decision prevents the Legislature from taking
several important additional steps and addressing existing impediments
to effectiveness and efficiency, e.g., the absence of a full accountability
system.
Impact Aid
As described elsewhere in
this report, MAP has been charged only with analysis and recommendations
relating to state general fund expenditures. School districts would continue
to receive federal and perhaps state special funds, in addition to the
general funds generated by the model. Federal Impact Aid is a unique case
which will require special consideration in the context of changing the
school finance system.
Public Laws 81-815 and 81-874
authorize federal funds for local school districts "impacted" by unusually
concentrated federal government activities, such as military bases; defense
manufacturing; oil reserves; forests; or federally subsidized, low-income
housing.4 This aid is labeled "in lieu of tax" subsidy because
local jurisdictions cannot legally levy a tax on the federal government,
but they, nevertheless, often have to provide services to residents and
employees of activities which are heavily related to such a federal presence.
When a state is a "Unitary"
system of education, such as Hawaii, with no local school districts, the
Impact Aid flows directly to state coffers to be melded with general fund
revenues. However, where states rely heavily upon local school district
financing and locally levied property taxes, the Impact Aid usually flows
directly to the school district.
Under the proposed Cost Based
Block Grant Model, there is a case to be made that Wyoming will be a "Unitary"
state system. For example, in keeping with the Wyoming Supreme Court decision
in Campbell County, local districts will have little or no discretion in
spending levels, and property-tax rates may be state determined. All similarly
situated students will be recipients of the same
Figure Five
Comparison of Current
Wyoming Foundation Plan and
Proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model
Comparison
Dimension |
Current
Wyoming Foundation Model |
Proposed
Block Grant |
Plenary Authority
Legal/Reality |
De Jure/State
De Facto/ Districts |
State
State |
Operational
Definition of "Proper Education" |
State
Specified Revenue Per Classroom Resource Unit (CRU) |
Assured
Opportunity to Acquire Postsecondary Prerequisites |
Unit Determining
Total District Revenue |
Local
School District |
State |
Unit Determining
Spending Priorities |
Local
School District |
Local
School District |
Unit Determining
Instructional Priorities |
Local
School District |
Local
School District |
Unit Determining
Education Related Taxes |
State/Local
District |
State |
Basic Distribution
Device |
CRU
Measure of Classrooms |
ADM
Measure of Students |
Basis for
Determining Per-Pupil Dollar Level |
Political/Historical |
Rational/Technical |
State Specified
Local District Cost Adjustments |
School
Type (E/M/H)
Small School
Transportation
Special Education |
School
Type (E/M/H)
Teacher Seniority
Small School*
Pupil Characteristics
Cost Of Living
Transportation |
Discretion
for Local District to Generate Added Per Pupil Revenue |
Yes |
Legally
Uncertain
but Improbable |
Review Authority |
Wyoming
Supreme Court |
Wyoming
Supreme Court |
Administering
Agency |
Wyo. Dept.
of Education |
Wyo. Dept.
of Education |
level of revenue. These features
may well qualify Wyoming for unique federal recognition by which Impact
Aid would henceforth flow to the state and be available to the Legislature
to distribute. An initial determination would have to be made by the Wyoming
Legislature. Final determination on such matters will rest with the U.S.
Department of Education, and the complexity of the matter will almost assuredly
necessitate intercession by the Wyoming congressional delegation.
END NOTES
136L Ed. 2d16
93S. Ct. 1278 (1973).
2 A local school
district's actual tax rate may exceed the "mandatory" rate employed to
determine state subsidy eligibility. Districts have local option levies.
3 It is for this
reason that MAP proposes to use ADM as the principal allocation unit and
to abandon the CRU concept.
4 These laws were
initially enacted by Congress in 1940, and known then as the Lanham Act.
These statutes were intended then to compensate local school districts
for the impact of military preparations for World War II, such as the construction
of military bases. The notion of "federal impact" has subsequently been
expanded substantially. The PL 81-815 provision authorizes federal funds
for school construction. The PL 81-774 statute authorizes federal funds
for operation. These statutes are unique in that these funds need not flow
through states to benefit local school districts. Each year a local school
district completes a federally authorized census of student to determine
eligibility for these funds, and then directly receives revenues from the
federal government for those students who are determined to arrive at the
school house door because of a federal presence.
VIII. A Strategy for Inferring
"Costs" from Spending
Constructing a Cost Based
Block Grant Model is conceptually simple and practically difficult. The
problem is the absence of an active "market" for education goods and services.
In the absence of a pure competitive market, MAP has relied upon a cost-determination
strategy which, at its fundamental roots, links items purchased by school
districts to comparable non–education items and activities which are purchasable
in the market.
In concept, one should be
able to disaggregate components of instruction and then simply determine
the competitively shaped, market price for each. What does a quart of milk
cost? What does a new pickup truck cost? What does a life-insurance policy
cost? All these and millions more items in daily use can be purchased on
the market, and their prices are relatively easy to determine. A consumer,
either well informed or relatively ignorant, can purchase items having
weighed the asking price against perceived benefits. If dissatisfied, the
consumer can then buy no more or buy another brand. If satisfied, the consumer
can return for a second. Under such arrangements, millions of independent
and uncoordinated consumer choices act in the aggregate to influence the
availability and price of millions of items and services. This is the "Invisible
Hand" to which Adam Smith referred.
Schooling is a different
creature. One cannot proceed to the corner market and ask the clerk for
a "...box of fourth grade education please." If dissatisfied, the consumer
cannot return it and buy another brand. There is not an unfettered market
for education services. Because of the intimate connection between instruction
and the policy system's perception of the public's well-being, supply and
demand do not freely come into play to establish education prices. The
"Invisible Hand" is replaced by government's hand. "Prices" and availability
are constrained by a set of governmentally imposed policies and restrictions.
The policy system consciously
interferes in the provision and "pricing" of education. Here is the justification.
Education's benefits, at least at the primary and secondary level, are
not easily restricted to its immediate recipients. Conversely, the consequences
flowing from an absence of instruction are difficult to restrict to the
negligent individual. If left to their own devices, some citizens might
choose to under invest in the purchase of schooling, and those around them
and the larger society would accordingly be at risk. Thus, to protect itself
against under investment and ignorance, almost every society compels schooling.
The United States, through
a long stream of historically based policy decisions, has chosen to compel
schooling, publicly pay the cost of the endeavor (through taxation), and
provide instruction through public institutions.1 Also, perhaps
as a complement of compulsion and the use of public resources, the United
States (principally through state government and the judicial system) strongly
regulates public schools. They are not entirely free to operate as their
employees and parents might choose. Rather, they are constrained on dimensions
such as the quality of teachers they may employ, kinds of courses they
may offer, students they must accept, design of school buses they may purchase,
and the safety of the facilities they acquire or construct.
The combination of public
provision, personal compulsion, and operational regulation constrains the
market for education goods and services. There are only a few purveyors
who come to the marketplace to provide education services. Under current
circumstances, public providers have a tremendous advantage over private
purveyors, because the former can draw upon tax subsidies to offer their
instruction at a vastly lower price than private schools. Through lower
prices, coupled with compulsion and high regulation, public providers have
a near monopoly. "Demand" is compelled and "supply" is subsidized. There
is no free market which helps to establish price.
One might say, "Well, clearly
there are private schools. Cannot we see what their costs are and will
not that information assist in establishing the true cost of instruction?"
In some small ways, it does. Private schools have to use many of the same
instructional components as public schools. However, comparisons are not
sufficiently valid because of regulatory constraints on public schools.
Private schools are not compelled to employ government certified teachers.
They are not compelled to offer a legislatively specified curriculum. They
are not compelled to serve disabled students or other difficult-to-educate
students, or students from families who cannot afford the services. Their
facilities are often less subject to stringent building-code safety requirements,
and the schools are less likely to be subject to class size maxima or to
engage in collective bargaining with employees. These and numerous other
differences render it difficult to compare an apple with an apple when
attempting to discern education costs from private school activities.
What can be done in the face
of such uncertainty? If costs are not easily determined, where can one
turn in constructing a cost-based resource model? There are at least two
answers to this question. One answer that MAP explored and discarded is
employment of a "Hedonic Wage Model." This technique, which involves constructing
massive data bases and computing complicated regression equations, seems
at best premature to apply in this setting and, perhaps more realistically,
simply not appropriate at all. The research on this mode of modeling costs
has not been undertaken to a point where it can either specify costs with
precision or be understood by laypersons with confidence. Thus, to rely
upon such a procedure in attempting to comply with the Campbell County
decision would seem ill-considered. It is too experimental, potentially
too costly, too imprecise, and too impervious to public understanding.
MAP pursued an alternative
cost imputation strategy. This strategy, "Component Market Comparison,"
relies upon current school district spending figures and, where appropriate,
infers real costs. For example, if school districts purchase the services
of professional librarians, then do not the salaries paid them approximate
the true "cost" of librarians?
Critics of this "expenditures
equate to costs" approach respond:
Not necessarily. School
districts may simply be spending whatever revenues they have available
to them. These revenues may be insufficient to provide a proper education,
or may result in more funds than are needed to provide a proper education.
By capturing current spending and inferring that it represents costs, one
may be massively and systematically underestimating or overestimating the
true costs of a proper education.
This response oversimplifies
or overlooks a few facts. For example, statewide average expenditures encompass
both high-spending and low-spending school districts, and "true costs"
may emerge from the mix. Second, some districts in Wyoming have amassed
substantial financial reserves. This condition suggests that the revenue
these districts receive must be sufficient to meet their true costs. If
districts with surpluses spend the same amount for instructional items
as do districts without surpluses, it suggests that expenditures match
costs.
However, MAP analysts were
reluctant to rely entirely upon such extrapolative arguments. First, by
consulting with a wide range of education experts in Wyoming and nationally,
as well as reviewing all relevant research, MAP determined a quantity and
quality of resources required to provide an adequate (as specified by the
Legislature) education to the children of Wyoming. Having done this, MAP's
task was to assure that this quantity and quality of resources could actually
be purchased by school districts. MAP did so by determining that these
resources were currently being purchased by Wyoming school districts at
prices allowed for in the model. Thus, because of the partial reliance
on actual Wyoming district expenditure experience, it is possible that
the model allows districts to continue to pay more than a theoretically
"true" cost for these resources, but it is not possible that the model
expects districts to provide an adequate education for less than this cost.
MAP thus examined beginning
teacher salaries in Wyoming's most competitive labor markets (Laramie and
Albany counties), where it can be assumed that, if beginning teacher salaries
were too low, school districts would not be able to hire and retain qualified
teachers, but would instead lose teacher candidates to other professional
pursuits.
MAP used the statewide mean
entry salary on which to build a base teacher salary, rather than the entry
salary in the most competitive district(s) because it is easier to explain
the statewide mean entry salary. However, MAP then compared the statewide
mean teacher entry salary to the entry-level teacher salary in Wyoming's
most labor market competitive district(s) (Laramie 1, Laramie 2, Albany
1) and found that the statewide average teacher entry salary was close
to, but slightly higher, than both (1) the weighted entry-level teacher
salary and (2) entry-level nonteaching professional salaries in the most
competitive districts.
MAP then increased the above-described
base entry salary by folding in academic credits and establishing a seniority
step schedule. The dollars used for credits and seniority steps were both
established by calculating current actual expenditures. However, MAP appraised
the validity of this process by comparing the resulting statewide mean
teacher salary with the salaries paid to teachers in neighboring states.
Almost without exception, MAP's model resulted in higher teacher compensation
than is paid in the states that border on Wyoming.
This logical linking does
not respond to all complaints regarding a cost model. Critics of relying
upon current expenditures as a proxy for cost also assert that it is class
size which drives revenue consumption almost as much as teacher salaries.
They inquire: "How do we know that school districts are not simply purchasing
the number of teachers they can afford with the revenues they have, rather
than obtaining the number they truly need to provide a proper education?"
MAP attempts to answer this
question in two ways. First, by convening and conferring with dozens of
Wyoming education experts, MAP determined what was consensually agreed
to be a range of acceptable class sizes.
Second, MAP explored relevant
education research findings to verify that these class size figures were
consistent with empirical findings regarding optimal class size effects.
They are.
It is easier to assume that
salaries for nonprofessional, classified staff are competitive. Also, health
insurance costs are generally competitive across occupational categories.
Thus, when considering all school district remuneration, salaries and fringe
benefits, professional and nonprofessional, approximately 80 percent of
education spending is covered. The remaining 20 percent of school district
spending is distributed over a wide variety of goods and services. For
many of these nonpersonnel items, such as computers, paper, petroleum,
transport, food, insurance, athletic equipment, and textbooks, there is
a market.
Despite there being a market
in some non-salary categories, such as supplies, MAP employed an average
of actual expenditures. Supplies, especially when compared with salaries
and benefits, have very small relative importance in the model. Although
it would have been more precise actually to price each pencil and eraser
purchased, the cost of such precision would outstrip the benefit. Further,
Wyoming school officials did not cite supplies as priority items for expanded
funding. The Wyoming experts were much more concerned about such provisions
as small class sizes and additional student support personnel.
The Appendix displays the
manner in which costs were imputed for each Cost Based Block Grant Model
component.
END NOTES
1Private schooling
has long existed in the United States, and for over 70 years it has had
the imprimatur of U.S. Supreme Court approval. However, relatively few
students (11 percent of the school age eligible population nationally and
a far smaller percent in Wyoming) choose private schools.
IX. Model Components and
Their Imputed Costs
The proposed distribution
formula is based upon five major categories, each of which is explained
in detail later. The individual elements of the formula are cumulative
and interactive. In determining revenues for which each Wyoming district
will be eligible, consideration will have to be given separately to the
district's characteristics on each major distribution dimension. Following
that operation, all elements are fused into a final computation, which
determines district total operating revenue eligibility. (Capital considerations
and sources of revenue and taxation are not presently components of the
proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model and are to be given separate consideration
by the Legislature.)
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model is premised on two assumptions. First, the principal basis of distribution
will be a measure of students, average daily membership (ADM). The second
premise is comprised of three prototypical models of schools — elementary,
middle, and high school.
Assumption One: Measures
of Students to be Schooled
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model assumes students as the fundamental building block around which
the distribution formula is constructed.1 This action is taken
because it is consistent with the legal responsibility of the state. The
state is responsible for providing schooling to students. Thus, taking
the unit for which the state is legally responsible as the unit upon which
to distribute resources appears as the most rational mode of operation.
It is also the conventional mode throughout the United States and the industrial
world.
Once this assumption is made,
then it is necessary to determine the means for measuring students and
their characteristics which are important to take into account for education
purposes.
This report proposes to utilize
ADM as the technical measure of students.2 These are presumed
to be students registered to attend schools. In that Wyoming presently
requires school districts to record ADM, the same definitions and pupil
accounting procedures can be used under the Cost Based Block Grant Model
as are currently in place. Wyoming Department of Education and local school
district officials are familiar with these procedures, and no troublesome
transition should result.
In addition, for purposes
of determining a district's revenue eligibility, it will be necessary to
aggregate ADM by elementary, middle, and high school. The distribution
formula, as described in the section immediately below, includes different
assumptions regarding resources necessary for instructional effectiveness
for each of these three grade configurations.
Other student characteristics,
such as their economic status or whether or not they are disabled
or gifted, are also important formula components. However, these matters
and their measurement are explained later under adjustments to the formula.
Assumption Two: School
Organizational Characteristics
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model posits schools covering three grade-level groupings (elementary,
middle, and high school). This is a pattern widely utilized in Wyoming
currently. However this proposed financing mechanism only computes district
revenue eligibility; it does not dictate practice. If a local district
decides that a different grade configuration better serves its communities
(for example, bypassing middle schools and utilizing only elementary and
high schools), that is its prerogative. There is nothing in the funding
formula which preempts such a local judgment.
The model is constructed
around the following prototypical grade groupings: K–5, 6–8, and 9–12.
If a local Wyoming school district now, or prospectively, relies upon alternative
grade groupings, then the finance model simply treats (imputes costs and
discerns revenue eligibility) whatever grades are actually involved as
though the district's grade levels were grouped into the tripartite groupings
listed above. In other words, students, regardless of a local district
grade configuration, will be assigned for revenue determination purposes
to their prototypical grade groupings.
The model further posits
an idealized enrollment and class-size zone for each grade grouping.3
By national standards, these assumed enrollment zones are small. This is
deliberate; the weight of emerging research regarding schooling suggests
that, although the operational dynamics are not clear, smaller schools
encourage higher academic performance, particularly in the early grades
and for students from low-income and minority backgrounds.4
The prototypical models for
each of the three proposed grade groups are depicted in Figure Six. When
compared to school size currently in Wyoming, these prototypes are larger
than most schools, but most students are enrolled in schools which are
as large or larger. However, the distribution of school size in
Wyoming is sufficiently wide currently that there are many existing schools
the size of or even smaller than what is proposed as a prototype.5
Similarly, to the extent
that large schools are problematic, these prototypes could be used as models
for schools within a school or other organizational strategies.
Figure Six
Proposed
Grade Grouping and Enrollment Size Prototypes
Grade Grouping
(School Type)
|
Number of
Students
|
Elementary School
Grades K-5
|
288
|
Middle School
Grades 6-8
|
300
|
High School
Grades 9-12
|
600
|
Determining Revenues
The next step in constructing
the proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model is to derive dollar (revenue)
values representing the costs of formula components. These cost elements
(dollar amounts), when accepted by the Legislature, become values in an
equation by which:
-
Overall education operating
costs to the state are determined, and
-
Operating revenue eligibility
of each individual school district is computed.
The principal source of information
for determining the costs of formula components is the price that now is
paid for the specific services and goods involved. Because most components
of the proposed distribution formula are now utilized by at least one Wyoming
district, and in most instances by all districts, the costs of components
can be generally estimated from existing expenditure accounting data for
Wyoming school districts.6 Only in a few instances, such as
the added costs of instructing at-risk students, have data been derived
from research reports and other out-of-state sources.
Five Major Components
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model contains approximately 25 principal formula components (see Figure
Seven). However, this complexity can be simplified somewhat by considering
these components within five overarching categories:
-
Personnel
-
Supplies, Materials, and Equipment
-
Special Services
-
Special Student Characteristics
-
Special School, District, and
Regional Conditions
Each prototypical school model
is supplied with categories of services and goods deemed by Wyoming experts,
research findings, professional standards, and conventional practice to
be crucial for the conduct of instruction. However, the quantities and
characteristics of these services and goods are not uniform across all
three prototypical school models. There are deliberate variations depending
upon the grade grouping involved.
Each of the five major component
categories is described here.
A. Personnel7
Of these categories, personnel
will account for the overwhelming costs of a school district. Of all Wyoming
school district revenues, 84 percent will be allocated to pay personnel
costs. Thus, this is the category to which this report first turns and
the one to which the most space will be devoted. Also, the primary determinant
of the number of personnel positions needed by a school district is the
assumed level of class size. Hence, the biggest driver of overall education
costs is the class-size decision.
School district personnel
are conventionally separated into two categories denoting levels of professional
and occupational preparation and required licensure by the state. Those
employee categories requiring state certification are generally the highest
paid. (There are exceptions to such a rule when an occupational category
is in short supply and a school district has to elevate salaries, such
as for a computer technician, to meet labor market competition.) Those
personnel for whom the state does not require professional licensing as
a condition of school district employment are labeled "classified" employees.
The distinction between the two categories is important in these circumstances,
because means for calculating the costs, and thus imputing revenues for
each kind of personnel are different.
Figure Seven
Cost
Based Block Grant Model Costs Components
1. Personnel
a. |
Classroom Teachers |
(Certified) |
b. |
Substitute Teachers |
(Certified) |
c. |
Instructional Aides |
(Classified) |
d. |
Pupil Support Personnel |
(Certified) |
e. |
Library/Media Personnel |
(Certif/Classified) |
f. |
School Administrators |
(Certified) |
g. |
Clerks and Data Entry Personnel |
(Classified) |
h. |
Operations/Maintenance Personnel |
(Classified) |
2. Supplies, Materials, and Equipment
a.
Supplies and materials
b.
Equipment
3. Specialized Services
a.
Food Service
b.
Student Activities
c.
Professional Development
d.
Assessment
e.
School District Operation
i.
Maintenance and Operation
ii. Administration
iii. Transportation
4. Adjustments for Special Characteristics
of Students
a.
Disabled Student Services
b.
Economically Disadvantaged Students
c.
Gifted Students
d.
Limited English Proficient Students
5. Adjustments for Special Characteristics
of Schools and Districts
a.
Small Schools
b.
Seniority
c.
Adjustment for Cost of Living
|
i. Certified Personnel
Costs
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model envisions several certified categories, including teachers,
substitute teachers, pupil-personnel professionals (counselors, psychologists,
etc.), librarians, and administrators. The costs for these categories have
been computed in the manner described below, drawing upon salary and fringe
benefit information collected by MAP from local Wyoming school districts;
the Wyoming Department of Education; and national data collection agencies,
such as the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Education
Association, and the Wyoming Education Association
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model operates using a "Total Compensation Package." This aggregate amount
includes salaries, mandatory fringe benefits (e.g., retirement), and health
benefits. MAP proposes that the Wyoming Legislature adopt an aggregate
dollar cost for all of these activities in determining local school district
revenue eligibility. The actual and final determination of salaries and
fringe benefits, and the degree to which health plans are paid on a matching
basis between employers and employees, should be made by local districts
as they translate state revenue resources into actual district operations.
Most teaching vacancies are
filled by beginning teachers. For that reason, MAP's analysis has emphasized
beginning teachers' salaries. As explained elsewhere in this report, it
has been determined that these beginning teachers' salaries in Wyoming
are competitive with those paid to similarly trained professionals in other,
nonteaching occupations and competitive with salaries paid teachers in
surrounding states. Thus, current Wyoming teachers' salaries appear to
be adequate to attract well-qualified teachers who are willing to teach
for prevailing salaries.
The total compensation package
was constructed through a five-step process:
Figure Eight
Calculating A Classroom
Teacher Total Compensation Package
Here is an illustration of
the manner in which personnel unit costs can be determined for Classroom
Teachers.
Wyoming Statewide Mean Beginning
Teacher Salary = $20,573
+
Wyoming Statewide Mean Salary
Payment For Academic Credits = $1,796
+
Wyoming Statewide Mean Salary
Payment for Years of Service = $9,389*
+
Wyoming Statewide Mean Mandated
Fringe benefits =
$6,034
+
Wyoming Statewide Mean health
benefit payment =
$3,641
=
Wyoming Statewide Classroom
Teacher Total Compensation =
$41,433
* annually adjusted for each
district depending upon its distribution of teacher seniority across five
teacher experience ranges.
(1) Calculating a statewide
average salary for beginning teachers.
(2) Adding to it an amount
equal to the statewide mean payment for academic units (units of academic
credit in excess of a bachelor's degree).
(3) Adding the statewide
mean amount currently paid for salary schedule steps (years of service).
This schedule step amount is adjusted, however, for the actual deployment
of a district's teachers across a seniority grid which groups a district's
teachers into the following five experience categories: 1–5 years, 6–10
years, 11–15 years, 16–20 years, and greater than 20 years. A district's
revenue allocation will reflect the proportion of its teacher work force
falling into each of these five categories. The justification for such
a computation is that districts have little control over teacher seniority.
This is a factor which is more a function of local demographic patterns
than school district policy. Each district's position on this grid will
be determined administratively by state officials each year.
(4) Adding mandated fringe
benefits, such as retirement and Social Security.
(5) Adding a health insurance
benefit.
Are these remuneration amounts
sufficient? Fundamental to a determination of the adequacy of the resources
included in the model is whether salary levels are sufficiently competitive
to attract the needed numbers of teachers of an acceptable quality level
to deliver a proper instructional program.
Figure Nine
Computation of Teacher
Salary Adjustments for Units and Steps
All data for these calculations
are taken from the Wyoming Education Association Department of Research
1996-97
Wyoming School District Salaries and Benefits.
Step or Seniority Adjustment
The statewide cost of
step increases is equal to the sum of the products of the weighted
average step increase paid for each full-time-equivalent (FTE) teacher
in each district.
While most school districts
pay a uniform amount for each additional year of service, some salary schedules
pay a larger amount to more senior teachers, others pay more for more recent
hires, and a few salary schedules feature idiosyncratic rates for years
of service. In each case the step increase paid to the teachers with the
greatest number of units (far right column) was used to calculate the average
for each increment of service (row or step).
The statewide cost of
pay for units is equal to the statewide total teacher salary costs
minus the statewide cost of step increases.
The statewide average
step increase is equal to the statewide cost of step increases divided
by the statewide FTE of teachers.
The statewide average
pay for units is equal to the statewide pay for units divided by the
statewide FTE of teachers.
The district adjustments
for seniority are equal to the statewide weighted average of step increases
for teachers with 1-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, and
greater than 20 years multiplied by each district's teacher FTE in each
of those categories.
Wyoming's districts generally
experience little difficulty attracting applicants. In visits to the 29
scientifically selected districts located throughout Wyoming, MAP found
districts experiencing little difficulty recruiting elementary teachers.
Secondary teachers were reported to be somewhat less abundant, and nearly
all sampled districts reported some difficulty recruiting special education
and other teachers with specialized skills. This latter condition is echoed
nationally and is almost certainly a result of paying all teachers on the
same salary schedule rather than offering a differential for scarce expertise.
Another important measure
of the adequacy of salaries is the quality of persons hired. MAP determined
from research in the above-mentioned sample of local districts that 85
percent of Wyoming's new teachers possess a grade-point average of "B"
or better.8
Finally, comparisons of teacher
salaries from neighboring states suggest that Wyoming is currently competitive
as Figure Ten shows.
State |
Average Beginning |
Average Salary |
|
Salary |
Rank |
|
|
|
Wyoming |
$21,900 |
$31,571 (2) |
Colorado |
$21,472 |
$36,364 (1) |
Nebraska |
$21,299 |
$31,496 (3) |
Utah |
$20,544 |
$30,390 (5) |
Montana |
$19,992 |
$29,364 (6) |
Idaho |
$19,667 |
$30,894 (4) |
Source: American Federation
of Teachers Research Department
ii. Salaries for Specialized
Certified Personnel
Substitute Teachers.
The Cost Based Block Grant Model proposes to provide school districts with
revenues for substitute teachers at the rate of $60.00 per day, multiplied
by a 175-day school year. This amount provides districts with an option
of either (a) deploying regular, "extra" teaching positions at a school,
to instruct when teachers are absent or (b) employing substitutes on an
as-needed basis.
Librarians and Pupil Services
Personnel. The proposal is that these personnel are costed at the same
levels as classroom teachers. If districts choose, they can pay these individuals
larger amounts, as some now do. Districts can also provide these personnel
with annual contracts that reward a longer work year, assuming that their
work year is indeed longer than the number of instructional days for which
a district offers instruction. However, to cost pupil personnel positions
or school librarians at higher levels than classroom teachers runs the
risk of conveying a message that the former perform a more important function
than the latter, and such practices are not recommended in the absence
of other significant justifications for higher salaries.
School Administrators
and Other Specialized Professional Personnel. This category includes
principals, subordinate administrators at schools, and specialized professionals,
such as psychologists. MAP analyses reveal that, relying upon statewide
salaries for the positions in this category, the mean administrator and
specialists' salary is 1.6 times higher than salaries of classroom teachers,
with added academic credits and years of service included.
The resulting total compensation
package for this personnel category ranges from approximately $64,000 to
$67,000.
iii. Salaries for Classified
Personnel
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model proposes three classified personnel categories for which statewide
mean salary costs have been determined. These costs have been calculated
from accounting data reflecting existing Wyoming school district payment
practice.
The suggested classified
categories are
-
Instructional Aides
-
Clerks and Data Entry Personnel
-
Operations/Maintenance Personnel
The costs per FTE position are
displayed in Figure Eleven.
Figure Eleven
Personnel Costs (Annual
Salary and Fringe Benefits) Per FTE Position
Personnel
Category |
FTE
Salary Cost |
FTE
Mandatory Fringe |
FTE
Health Cost |
FTE
Total Cost |
Classroom
Teachers |
$31,758 |
$6,034 |
$3,641 |
$41,433 |
Pupil
Personnel |
$31,758 |
$6,034 |
$3,641 |
$41,433 |
Administrators |
$50,877-$53,071 |
$9,667-$10,083 |
$3,641 |
$64,185-$66,795 |
Aides |
$10,080 |
$1,915 |
|
$11,995 |
Clerical/
Data Entry |
$16,000 |
$3,040 |
$3,641 |
$22,681 |
Operations |
$20,000 |
$3,800 |
$3,641 |
$27,441 |
B. Supplies, Materials,
and Equipment
The following categories
of supplies have been included in the proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model
distribution formula. Costs per pupil imputed to each category have been
deduced from accounting data reflecting existing Wyoming school district
practice. However, the per-pupil amounts differ by grade grouping, reflecting
instructional program differences.
i. Supplies and Instructional
Materials
This category contains the
items (e.g., chalk, paper, pencils, and erasers) regularly used by teachers
and others in a school to provide instruction and engage in the day-to-day
clerical and custodial operation of the school. The per-pupil costs to
be imputed range from $215 in elementary schools, $190 in middle schools,
and $275 in high schools.
ii. Equipment
This category includes instructional
computers, calculators, globes, scientific displays, and specialty items,
such as gymnastic equipment, used for instructional purposes. Computers
are taken to be unusually important because of their potential for enhancing
student achievement.9 The per pupil costs to be imputed in this
category range from $131 per pupil in elementary schools, through $146
in middle schools, to $162 in high schools.
Figure Twelve
Supply, Material, and
Equipment Costs
Component |
Elementary
$/ADM |
Middle
$/ADM |
High
School $/ADM |
Supplies
& Materials |
$215
|
$190
|
$275
|
Equipment |
$131
|
$146
|
$162
|
C. Specialized Services
i. Food Service
This activity is complicated
by the subsidies made available by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Nevertheless, there are costs incurred both by the state, in administering
the federal program, and by local school districts in the preparation and
distribution of meals to students. The category is mentioned here in order
to provide a reader with information. However, an assumption is made in
the proposed financing model that food service will be a self-sustaining
effort in each school district and will not draw upon state revenue subsidies.
ii Student Activities
Student activities include
athletic events, debating teams, and student government. There is a substantial
difference in spending in this category between high- and low-revenue districts.
The proposed mechanism for
costing this component is to provide each district with a per-pupil cost
amount averaging $8 per elementary student, $54 per middle school student,
and $167 for each high school student. The ratios of five percent, 20 percent,
and 70 percent were proposed by Wyoming school business officers and are
based on their estimates of current practice.
iii. Professional
Development
The revenue allocated in
this category is intended to enable school districts to ensure that instructional
personnel have regular access to training in modern pedagogical techniques.10
This is an important category for several reasons. Wyoming is considering
important changes in student assessment and recently has made significant
changes in its accreditation procedures. Teachers, administrators, and
others will need to be informed about these changes and the manner in which
they can be used to enhance instruction. Also, better staff development
opportunities for classroom teachers will assist them in instructing and
including handicapped students in regular classroom experiences.
The per-pupil costs to be
imputed to professional development vary slightly by grade groupings and
are based on a figure calculated to be 1.5 percent of the foundation amount
in the following range: $92 for elementary personnel, $96 for middle school,
and $102 for high school.
iv. School District
Operation
-
Maintenance and Operation
-
Administration
-
Transportation
-
Assessment
The above-listed items are costed
on a per-pupil basis, relying upon existing Wyoming accounting data for
expenditures. The per-pupil amounts vary by grade grouping. These costs
are assumed to be borne by an entire district, to serve schools within
its boundaries. For example, "Administration" refers to central district
administration, business administration, expenses for the board of education,
etc. In addition, there are other costs which are appropriately attributed
to the district, i.e. highly specialized support services, like psychological
services and speech pathology, which are more often a district than a site
function. MAP has assigned "other transportation" to the district, as well
as other categories of funds which are more likely to be district than
school-site expenditures.
A group of Wyoming educators
contends that the costs associated with maintenance and operations are
more a function of the size and condition of buildings than student enrollment.
They recommend that these costs be based on the number of square feet of
building space the district maintains. Clearly, there is merit to this
argument; however here, as elsewhere, there is too little current information
to evaluate the proposal fully. The most recent data on school facilities
in Wyoming necessary to impute these costs were gathered three or more
years ago and almost certainly do not accurately reflect current conditions.
Just as MAP's proposal features
some disadvantages, allocation on the basis of square feet may motivate
school districts to behave in ways not intended by the Legislature. For
example, it would provide little incentive to replace obsolete buildings
or to consolidate schools when enrollment declines. Some of the undesirable
characteristics of a space- based formula can be overcome if the state
were to adopt standards for the maximum number of square feet per ADM that
would be reimbursed.
MAP recommends that maintenance
and operations be calculated as a function of ADM until such time as the
state is able to conduct a comprehensive inventory of school facilities
and to gather reliable information on these costs. Clearly, there are some
aspects of maintenance and operations which are more closely related to
ADM. Just as clearly, there are others more closely related to other factors,
such as square footage and age of buildings. The most appropriate formula
is one which takes into account both ADM and square footage. The development
of such a formula should await additional information gathered from a new
school facilities study. There is a high correlation between maintenance
and operations and the number of students, and these costs are a relatively
small portion of a school district's overall budget. For these reasons
it is unlikely that the proposed formula will work an undue hardship on
school districts for the period of time required to gather the necessary
information.
Figure Thirteen
School District Operations
Costs
Item |
Elementary $/ADM
|
Middle
$/ADM
|
High School $/ADM
|
Maintenance
&
Operation |
$561
|
$649
|
$800
|
Administration
and Miscellaneous Expenses |
$553
|
$553
|
$553
|
Transportation |
$268
|
$268
|
$268
|
Transportation
School district transportation
costs are primarily a function of population density and geography, but
they are also a function of school district preferences and choices. It
is consistent with the state Supreme Court's decision and entirely appropriate
for the school finance formula to account for the former. It is within
the province of the Legislature to decide the degree to which it will support
the latter.
Among Wyoming school districts,
factors of density and geography are highly variable, and it is difficult
to construct a standard formula that will equitably serve all districts.
For that reason, MAP proposes that the Legislature only slightly modify
the current practice of reimbursing prior year's expenses.
Home to School. Policies
on which students are eligible for free home-to-school transportation vary
significantly from district to district. Some school districts transport
virtually all students, regardless of distances between home and school.
Others transport only students living a mile or more from their school.
Still others will bus only those students living outside of the city limits.
Therefore, consistent with the Court's decision and the basic premise of
the overall model, the Legislature should decide the maximum distance a
student would be required to travel before district transportation would
be made available. This distance could be one, two, three, or more miles,
and it would merely set the limit on state reimbursement. Local districts
could set different limits, consistent with local preferences, but the
state would reimburse only for students being transported beyond the distance
adopted by the Legislature.
One potential problem with
any reimbursement system is that it provides little incentive for local
administrators to control costs. A number of computer simulation packages
can be used to model cost-effective transportation systems. MAP recommends
that the Wyoming Department of Education regularly use one or more of these
packages to analyze district costs and to propose further refinement of
the reimbursement formula.
Home to school accounts for
a little over four of every five dollars spent on transportation. The balance
is spent on travel related to student activities and a third category described
as "other;" neither of these categories of transportation are currently
reimbursed by the state. Provision for state reimbursement of travel for
student activities is included in the model. Both student activities and
other categories largely, if not entirely, reflect local preferences for
the nature and level of expenditures on each. Some districts spend little
or nothing in either or both categories, and some spend relatively large
amounts.
Student Activities.
Wyoming's educators have made a strong case for funding student-activity-related
travel. MAP concurs that student activities are an integral part of education
for all students, and that travel, especially in the more remote school
districts, is an essential element of such a program. As elsewhere, differences
in district expenditure patterns appear to reflect differences caused by
conditions over which districts have little control and by local preferences
and choices. The conditions over which the districts have little control
are similar to those affecting home-to-school transportation. For that
reason, it seems reasonable that costs in these two categories bear a relationship
to each other. While patterns vary among districts, statewide student activity
travel costs are approximately 10 percent of home-to-school travel costs.
MAP offers one option that student activity travel costs be reimbursed
at a standard rate of 10 percent of home-to-school travel for all districts.
Initial budget changes would be modest and should be even less as the policy
on reimbursement of home to school becomes more standardized.
Other options available to
the Legislature range from full reimbursement of actual expenditures to
not allowing expenditures for this purpose. Full reimbursement would discourage
any efforts to control costs. Disallowing any expenditure for student travel
for activities would all but eliminate sports and other extracurricular
programs for most students, especially those in remote schools.
Other Transportation.
Expenditures for other travel are primarily the travel costs incurred by
district employees and officials. In most school districts expenditures
in this category are quite small. At least two school districts shift a
portion of the cost of food services to this account. As described above,
food services should be self sustaining and therefore not reimbursed by
the state. The model aggregates other transportation costs into overall
administration costs.
D. Special Characteristics
of Students
Some number of students in
every school district present extraordinary educational challenges that
frequently require services of a nature or quantity that imply extra costs.
Within the student population, there is a continuum of needs and related
costs of meeting those needs; however, these can be grouped into generally
recognized categories and subcategories. In some cases a student identified
as falling within a specified category acquires legal rights to supplementary
services. Students with specific disabilities may be classified as special
education eligible, or the family income or the home language of others
will be used to determine their eligibility for special services. In some
cases a student's unique talents will qualify him or her for special services.
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model has embedded within it a strategy for meeting the challenges
presented by students with special characteristics. The model assumes small
schools, small classes, teaching specialists, and professional development
resources for teachers. The aggregate consequence of such resources is
intended to enable a classroom teacher better to cope with the characteristics
of the students in her or his class. The block grant approach attempts
to sidestep the classroom "pull out" programs that originated in the 1960s
for the education of students with special characteristics, which proved
to be dysfunctional and ineffective.
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model proposes four categories of special students.
i. Special Education
Individuals identified
with one or more of the following disabilities have a legal right to appropriate
services: autistic, brain injury, deaf and blind, emotionally disturbed,
deaf, health impaired, learning disabled, mentally retarded, orthopedically
handicapped, speech and language impaired, and visually impaired. In 1995-96,
11.34 percent of Wyoming's student population was identified as disabled
and qualified for special education services. Approximately 77 percent
of those students were identified as learning disabled or speech and language
impaired. These data are similar to national averages.
Services provided for these
categories of disabled students range from modest pullout programs for
speech therapy to 24-hour residential care. Costs per student vary accordingly.
The state currently reimburses 85 percent of special education costs. Even
so, one unusually high-cost student can create serious financial problems
in small districts. Also, state reimbursement of most of the cost tends
to remove incentives for district administrators to minimize costs, especially
if they are confronted by an adversarial parent insistent upon a particular
special and costly placement.
Several states and the federal
government are reexamining cost-based reimbursement formulae with an eye
to addressing various associated perverse incentives. Foremost among these
states are Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Montana. All have
moved from a cost reimbursement formula to what is labeled a "Census Based"
system. Research in these states reveals favorable student-placement and
cost-containment outcomes.
In their simplest form, "Census
Based" systems provide a block grant to each district based proportionally
on the number of students they enroll. Districts are required to serve
all special education students and comply with state and federal laws regarding
students with handicaps. However, the funding is not tracked to the special
education program, thus maximizing local flexibility. For example, two
districts, each with 2,000 students, would receive an identical amount
of special education funding. In this case, using Wyoming data, each of
these districts would receive funding based on a predicted incidence of
227 (11.34 percent) special education students. The amount of funding should
be based upon statewide average real costs for providing appropriate services.
MAP has identified two potential
impediments to Wyoming immediately adopting a census-based special education
formula. The first is that district expenditure data are not currently
reported in sufficient detail to precisely determine the costs of providing
services. Second, a census model is predicated on the assumption that districts
of similar size will enroll about the same number of disabled students
and that the portion will remain similar over time. This would almost certainly
be the case in medium to large districts, but for districts with fewer
than 1,000 ADM, changes of a few students could appreciably alter the ratio
from year to year. This change is particularly problematic when even one
or two of those students are characterized by unusually high-cost needs.
MAP, therefore, recommends
that the Legislature continue the current practice of reimbursing 85 percent
of actual cost for one to two years. During that time, the state should
implement procedures that allow tracking special education specific costs
to each handicapping condition. When these data are available, MAP recommends
adoption of a modified, census-based formula.
Of particular concern is
the effect of high-cost students on very small districts. A number of options
are offered to address this problem. The state could assume the full cost
for some students under specific conditions. For example, when reliable
cost data are available, it would be relatively easy to determine in advance
those conditions that, on average, cost more than some multiple, e.g. four
times the foundation amount which would be fully reimbursed by the state
(less the foundation amount plus the standard special education adjustment).
An alternative would be to
provide an appeal procedure for districts, especially those with fewer
than 1,000 ADM, to seek relief from extraordinary costs associated with
one or more unusually high-cost students. School districts with fewer than
500 ADM should be afforded an appeal procedure for not only high-cost students,
but for special education students of all disabilities, because changes
of just a few students may have a significant effect on the portion of
their student bodies that is eligible for special education. This option
would be unnecessary for larger districts.
Professional development
opportunities for regular classroom teachers will assist them in instructing
handicapped students more effectively. Also, if sufficiently specialized,
regular classroom teachers can participate in ways that will reduce the
costs of serving disabled students. In other words, here is another example
of instances in which staff development is a good investment.
ii. Gifted Students
Generally, "gifted" students
are found to comprise about two percent of the population, based on some
recognized measure of intelligence. Some states have expanded the definition
to include special talents or multiple measures of intelligence. The portion
of the population eligible depends upon the chosen definition. MAP recommends
three percent to allow inclusion of a somewhat broader definition. Wyoming
now collects sufficient data on this category to permit a census-based
formula component to operate immediately. Each school district should be
assumed to have three percent of its students as "identifiably" gifted
and should receive $150 per such student.
iii. Limited English
Proficient
For the most part, the extra
services required to educate students whose first language is other than
English can be accommodated by extra attention from their regular teacher(s).
However, when large concentrations of such students attend a school, extra
resources, such as bilingual aides and teachers, should be provided. MAP
recommends a categorical program which provides extra funding for districts
with any school where the number of students documented with limited
English proficiency exceeds 20 students per grade level or 25 percent of
schoolwide ADM.
Little useful research on
the costs of programs for these students exists. The best that MAP can
identify was conducted in Connecticut, where costs were determined to be
15 percent greater than the base program. In absence of more compelling
data, MAP recommends that the proposed program be funded at 1.15 times
the number of identified limited-English-proficient students in those schools
meeting the concentration criteria described above.
It is not recommended, however,
that a particular teaching methodology be required or that expenditure
of funds thus provided be tracked to specific spending on these students.
One caveat — it is important for the state to develop objective procedures
for identifying eligible students that would be employed consistently across
all districts.
iv. Economically Disadvantaged
It is well documented that
students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds tend to require extra
services if they are to achieve at a level comparable to their more advantaged
peers. Fortunately, Wyoming enjoys relatively small pupil-teacher ratios,
thus enabling teachers to provide the necessary services and attention
to students who need extra help. However, as with limited-English-proficient
students, a school that enrolls large concentrations of these students
is likely to find regular classroom arrangements inadequate without extra
help. MAP recommends that the state provide additional support for school
districts where the number of students who qualify for the federal free
lunch program exceeds 150 percent of the state average.11 The
model assumes an expenditure of $500 per identified student.
The actual cost of providing
programs for disadvantaged students has not been well documented. Kentucky
provides funding at a rate of 15 percent greater than its foundation program
for students who qualify for the free lunch program. In absence of more
compelling data and considering that this ratio would generate an additional
nearly $800 to $900 per disadvantaged Wyoming student, MAP recommends that
in the longer term the state consider phasing in such an approach and base
eligibility on the incidence of children from poor families in specific
schools, rather than district wide.
Existing Categorical
Programs
Wyoming currently funds three
categorical programs for students who, because of their unique characteristics,
may require additional resources in their instructional program. These
include the Gifted and Talented, Compensatory Education, and Behavioral
Disordered Programs. These programs are not now funded from the general
fund and are excluded from current expenditure levels. MAP proposes that,
in the future, these programs be funded from general levels.
MAP recommends that the Legislature
carefully reconsider these programs. While all three address real needs,
each has serious flaws that may invite abuse. The federal government and
many states have come to understand that conditioning receipt of additional
funding on the identification of students with specific characteristics,
especially when those characteristics relate to academic failure, introduces
perverse incentives. Not only does it tend to stigmatize and stereotype
identified students, it skews the behavior of education decision makers.
For example, when the level of funding a school district receives is dependent
on the count of students who score below a certain level on a standardized
test, there can be little incentive to decrease the number of such children.
When additional funding is made available for students with an ill-defined
condition, rational school leaders will be motivated to maximize the number
of students thus labeled. Moreover, the very existence of these programs
at a school tends to remove any incentive for regular classroom teachers
to address the special needs of harder to teach students.
There is a large and growing
consensus that the most effective methodology for teaching children who
have special needs is in the regular classroom and through school-wide
intervention. While this notion is based on sound pedagogical theory, it
is not merely speculation that it may work. There are numerous practical
demonstrations in nearly every state. It is primarily for these reasons
that MAP has focused attention on lowering pupil-teacher ratios and increasing
professional development. Having adequately trained teachers responsible
for a reasonable number of students with some level of support from specialists
is not only a defensible program for all but the most profoundly handicapped
students, it is quite likely the most effective. With this rationale in
mind in the Cost Based Block Grant Model, MAP recommends that the three
existing programs be replaced by those described.
The current categorical programs
are described below:
Gifted and Talented--Eligibility
for the existing program includes nearly any student who is high achieving
or may appear to be potentially high achieving in general intellectual
ability; creative or productive thinking; visual, literacy or performing
arts; specific academic aptitude; or leadership ability. Districts may
establish their own criteria for identifying eligible students. The state
sets a cap of three percent of a district's enrollment for eligibility.
Local district participation in the program is optional, and the total
state grant is $350,000. Districts receive up to $150 per identified pupil
or a prorated amount if statewide demand exceeds $350,000.12
Under the current program,
virtually any student could conceivably qualify as being gifted or talented
on some dimension. MAP's strong recommendation is that the state adopt
and uniformly apply a definition of gifted or talented that would identify
those few students with a gift or talent that required additional nurturing
beyond that which normally would be provided by a well-trained, caring
classroom teacher. Keeping in mind that the preferred program for gifted
students would be delivered in a regular classroom and that the elementary
and middle school prototypes contain non-classroom specialists, the proposed
$150 per eligible student should be adequate to cover the cost of program
development, unique enrichment activities, and administration.
Compensatory Education--Students
eligible for this program are those who score below the 20th percentile
on a standardized achievement test and who are suspected to be slow learners
but do not qualify for special education, or those formerly identified
as learning disabled and who no longer qualify for special education. Current
funding for the program is $1 million. Districts receive approximately
$55 per identified student.13
As discussed elsewhere in
this report, at some point a concentration of low-achieving students places
a burden on the instructional system and additional resources are appropriate.
This program, however, does not seem to establish any such priority. Moreover,
there does not appear to be any inherent incentive in this program, as
currently conceived, to enhance the achievement of eligible students. MAP
does not mean to imply that any Wyoming educators would be motivated to
do less than their best for low-achieving students, but it is just this
problem that has caused other states and the federal government to reassess
programs which tend to reward failure.
Another fundamental problem
with this program is that it fails to discriminate among the underlying
causes of low achievement. Some students will fail to achieve because of
disadvantages accruing from their personal circumstances, including limited
English proficiency or disadvantages associated with poverty. Others may
fail to achieve because of inadequate instruction in the school district.
Currently, this program easily could subsidize the latter. Certainly, some
students from advantaged homes may experience academic difficulties, but
the strong correlation between poverty and low achievement is well documented.
Therefore, MAP recommends that the educationally disadvantaged program,
proposed elsewhere in this report, which is based on an objective measure
of poverty, replace the existing compensatory education program.
Behavioral Disordered--This
program provides grants to districts to serve students who exhibit behavioral
disorders which interfere with classroom instruction. Behavioral disorders
are not further defined. Program funding may be used for general program
development or for direct services to eligible students. Eligibility is
capped at three percent of enrollment and total statewide funding is $1
million.14
Clearly, the behavior of
a one or more students can disrupt a class, and it is in the best interest
of other students that teachers be provided adequate tools for dealing
with these students. The models proposed by MAP do just that. Reasonable
pupil-teacher ratios and adequate funding for professional development
obviate the need for this program.
E. Special Characteristics
of Schools15
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model includes two categories of special conditions: (a) "necessary
small schools" and (b) regional cost-of-living adjustments. The first of
these conditions, small schools, is a current formula component. However,
Wyoming's present formula does not contain a definition of "necessary."
MAP proposes to alter the manner in which such small schools are subsidized;
however, their need for added resources is clearly evident.
i. "Necessary Small Schools"
Either population sparsity
or unusual geographic features may necessitate a district operating a small
school, a school with, for example, fewer than 200 students. Schools of
this size are more costly to operate because there is a fixed base of costs
(e.g., the principal's salary) which cannot be spread over a sufficiently
large number of pupils to justify including the school in the statewide
funding formula. These small schools suffer from significant diseconomies
of scale, and the only means for ensuring that the educational opportunity
of their students is not unduly harmed is by disproportionately subsidizing
them.
However, "necessary small
schools" are to be distinguished from simple small schools, which operate
because a district has a preference for small schools. Perhaps, if permitted
the choice, many or every Wyoming community might like to have small schools.
At least at the elementary level, and perhaps at other grades as well,
these schools appear to have advantages in terms of promoting student achievement
and parent convenience. However, the cost of an "unnecessary" small school
is perhaps more than the state can or need bear. Hence, the following "necessary
small school" definition attempts to separate such institutions for which
the local school district has no choice from instances in which a small
school is a clear discretionary preference.
MAP proposes the following
definitions of "necessary small schools."
An elementary or middle school
with 200 or fewer ADM enrolled in kindergarten through grade eight, such
that a majority of its enrolled students would otherwise have to be transported
for more than one hour daily for elementary students, and 90 minutes for
middle school students. A "school" is further defined as all of grades
kindergarten through eight within the same building or multiple buildings
located within a quarter-mile radius.
A high school with 400 or
fewer ADM enrolled in grades nine through twelve, such that a majority
of its enrolled students would have to be transported more than two hours
daily. A school is further defined as all grades existing within the same
building or multiple buildings located within a quarter-mile radius.16
The formula for disbursing
additional dollars for small schools is described in the Appendix.
ii. Cost-of-Living
Adjustments17
Also, MAP proposes that all
of a school district's eligible personnel costs be multiplied by a regional
cost-of-living index. However, the notion of a cost-of-living multiplier
is relatively rare in school finance formulae, and it does not currently
exist in Wyoming's existing formula. Hence, this report devotes a substantial
amount of space to explaining the concept and the manner in which it would
operate practically.
The goal of developing an
index for the "cost" of education in different regions rests on the distinction
between "cost" and "expenditure."
To understand how much more
(or less) it might cost to provide comparable education services in one
district as opposed to another, it would clearly be inappropriate simply
to calculate how much one district actually spends, as opposed to the other.
A district may pay more for education services than another district, either
because those services actually "cost" more than they do elsewhere, or
because the district chooses to spend more. It may choose to spend more
than the service actually costs for political reasons, because of the role
of collective bargaining, or because of other non-economic considerations.
(Note that a district may also choose to spend less than the actual cost
of education services. For example, to the extent female college graduates
have historically been denied access to the full range of occupations available
to equally qualified male
college
graduates, school districts have been able to take advantage of an artificially
created surplus supply of female teacher applicants, and thus pay less
for these teachers than might be their true economic cost.)
If the market for education
services were fully competitive (if, in other words, it were a pure market),
"cost" and "expenditure" would generally be identical. If there were many
school districts in any region competing for the labor of many college
graduates, a school district that paid salaries that were less than the
economic cost of teachers would find that its teachers were being bid away
by other school districts that paid the full cost. Teachers who demanded
compensation in excess of the full economic cost of providing their labor
would find themselves unable to find employment, because equally qualified
teachers would take the available jobs at a lower price.
Education, however, is not
a fully competitive market. In many, if not in most communities, school
districts have monopsonistic power; i.e., districts are the dominant purchaser
of college-educated labor in their communities. (The districts need not
be the sole purchaser to have a market-distorting effect; rather, they
need only be a major purchaser to prevent the market from functioning with
perfect competition.) And because teachers tend to be more highly unionized
than other college-educated workers, teacher unions have a similar monopolistic
control over the supply of teacher labor. That boards of education are
publicly elected may also prevent the market from operating in its pure
competitive form.
These characteristics of
education markets are not necessarily bad, and this explanation is not
included in order to be critical. Rather the description simply explains
why education is not a pure competitive market in an economic sense.
The task of cost-of-education
theory, therefore, is in effect to imagine what the cost of education in
a community would be if the education market were fully competitive. In
other words, what would education really cost, as opposed to what districts
actually spend? And the goal of a regional cost adjustment within any state
is to define the relationship between these costs in different communities,
as opposed to actual expenditure levels in different communities.18
Fortunately, Wyoming already
prepares a semi-annual index of consumer prices for each county of the
state. It is published by the Department of Administration and Information,
and is designed for use by the Department of Revenue in calculations of
county poverty lines to administer exemptions from property tax liability
for homeowners whose income is below the poverty line in that county. The
Department of Administration and Information utilizes the relative importance
(weights) in a consumer market basket developed by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics in its construction of the national Consumer Price Index.
The Wyoming index is revised
on an continuing basis, utilizing purchasing patterns of consumers in Cheyenne,
based on systematic observations by Department officials. (For example,
when consumers in Cheyenne shift their purchases from cassette players
to CD players, the Department makes the appropriate substitution in its
market basket.) The Department of Administration and Information employs
(on a contract basis) price checkers in each of 15 communities throughout
the state, and these price checkers report price changes to the Department
on 140 market basket items every six months. The Department then calculates
a statewide index, based on these 15 communities. The index numbers for
15 counties are based on the price levels of the community surveyed in
that county. Index numbers for the other eight counties are in an arithmetic
relationship to the first 15, based on demographic and economic similarities
between the surveyed and the unsurveyed communities.
Because this index has been
developed for the purpose of administering the stateís property
tax system, it cannot be subject to any suspicion that its use for purposes
of education equalization is biased. While the Legislature could, if it
wished, attempt to improve the accuracy of the index by increasing the
Department of Administration and Information's budget for this purpose,
the index cannot ever have perfect accuracy, and there is no reason to
believe that greater accuracy would affect the relationship of index numbers
presently obtained. Any consumer price index in the Wyoming, because of
the stateís unique demographic and geographic characteristics, must
always be something of an approximation. For example, Wyoming consumers
may not always shop in the communities in which they reside, and so a consumer
price index for residential communities may not perfectly reflect the true
differences in cost of living.
These 140 separately priced
items in the Wyoming cost-of-living index are aggregated into the following
broad categories: housing (representing 40.9 percent of the total weight
of the index); transportation (17 percent); food (15.8 percent); recreation
and personal care (13.2 percent); medical (7.1 percent); and apparel (5.9
percent).
MAP proposes utilizing an
index which eliminates housing and medical components, and re-weights the
balance of the items accordingly.
The medical component should
be eliminated because the model on which the statewide education costs
are based anticipates that Wyoming's school districts will provide health
insurance coverage for all employees (and, in fact, most school employees
in Wyoming are presently provided with health insurance by their districts).
The Wyoming cost-of-living index, on the other hand, which gives medical
costs a relative importance of 7.1 percent, assumes that consumers pay
for their own medical care, such as the cost of a semi-private hospital
room and the cost of a doctorís office visit. Although Wyoming school
district insurance plans generally provide for co-payments, deductibles,
and out-of-pocket maximums whose value would vary from region to region,
it is MAP's judgment that including medical care in the index would lead
to more inaccuracy than excluding it. There was insufficient time and resources
to explore re-weighting the index so that medical care for insured employees
would still be included, but with a relative weight of less than 7.1 percent.19
Eliminating the housing component
from the cost-of-education index is also recommended because, as noted
in an earlier section of this report, some regions of the state may be
more desirable places to live than others. In economic terms, the relative
desirability of different places to live should be represented by the price
of residential land. Thus, if residential land is more expensive in one
region than another, this should be because the first region is a more
desirable place to live, and the demand for residential land, relative
to supply, is greater.
Because the supply of land
in any community is not expandable in response to price, residential land
is different from other products and services that are priced in the Wyoming
cost-of-living index. If the demand for food increases relative to supply
in a given community, and thus the price of food is high in that community,
it is possible to expand the number of food retailers until the price is
reduced to its true economic cost. In the case of land, however, no expansion
is possible, and so differences in residential land prices in different
communities can be said to represent the relative desirability of living
in these communities.
If this is the case, it would
be inappropriate to adjust the funds available to school districts to fully
compensate for differences in residential land prices. Were this to happen,
districts in communities in which teachers considered it more desirable
to live would, in principle, be able to hire a better quality of teacher
than districts in less desirable communities. Each district could theoretically
fully reimburse teachers, through salaries, for the cost of residential
land, while teachers in some communities would also receive a compensation
bonus in the form of greater community amenities. In other words, prices
for housing cannot easily be compared between districts, because they are
not prices for the same thing. Higher prices in some districts represent
the price of more desirable housing, while lower prices in other districts
represent the price of less desirable housing. This is different, therefore,
from the price of apples, where apples may cost more in one community than
another without necessarily being of higher quality. The payment of higher
residential land prices by teachers in some communities represents not
a higher cost of living for these teachers, but a choice to spend their
incomes for a different good (community amenities) than teachers elsewhere
choose.
Thus, to avoid giving higher
quality teachers incentives to move to communities with more desirable
living conditions, MAP recommends removing the housing component from the
index by which salary costs are adjusted. MAP recognizes, however, that
while removing housing costs removes the distorting effect of more desirable
community land prices, it also removes costs of components, such as construction
labor and utilities, where regional variations do reflect different costs.
Because the Department of Administration's regional price index does not
separate land values from other costs of housing, one distortion or the
other is inevitable. Therefore, should the Legislature choose to include
the housing component in the cost-of-education index, this report contains
the data necessary to do so.
END NOTES
1CRUs are no
longer a distribution formula component under the proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model.
2 Why not use
Average Daily Attendance (ADA) instead of ADM? Assuming that the amount
of money the state intends to distribute remains the same, the only consideration
between these two measures is whether one distributes revenues differently
among school districts when compared to the other measure. Attendance rates
in Wyoming as reported to MAP are sufficiently similar that these two measures
would not result in differing interdistrict distributional consequences.
In effect, there would be little incentive for keeping students in school
by using ADA. Hence, MAP recommends relying upon the measure ADM.
3 Small classes
are, all things being equal, more effective in producing student achievement.
The most powerful finding in this regard, indeed one of the most powerful
findings in all of instructional research, stems from the late 1980s experiments
by which Tennessee systematically varied class size. Experimental classes
were held at 15 students. Control classes were 22 students in size. One
control group had 22 students and included a teacher aide. Students in
the small classes not only had a substantially higher achievement level
several years after experiencing the small elementary classes, they were
still exhibiting achievement gains. See Frederick Mosteller, "The Tennessee
Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children,
Volume 5, Number 2, Summer/Fall 1995, Packard Foundation, Las Gatos, California.
On this topic, see also, Finn, Jeremy D. and Charles M. Achilles, "Answers
and Questions About Class Size: A Statement Experiment," American Education
Research Journal, 27, No. 3, February 1990, 557-577, and Glass, Gene and
Mary Lee Smith, Meta-Analysis of the Relationship of Class Size and Student
Achievement, San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research,
1978.
4 Fowler, William
J., Jr. and Herbert J. Walberg, "Schools Size, Characteristics, and Outcomes,"
Education
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3 No. 2, Summer 1991, 189-202.
5 See Figures
2-4 in the front of this report regarding Wyoming school size and enrollment
distribution.
6 The fact that
all components of the proposed formula are currently in place in one or
more Wyoming districts does not mean they are present in the same amounts
or patterns. Indeed, if they were, the Campbell County suit may never have
been successful.
7 Unless otherwise
noted, personnel components are provided in terms of Full Time Equivalent
(FTE) positions.
8Moreover, there
is no evidence to suggest that school districts deliberately skew salary
schedules toward the lower end in order to attract beginning teachers and
then pay artificially lower salaries to more experienced teachers. Assuming
that beginning teachers do not consider future earning potential when they
take a job ( a dubious assumption), it is only reasonable that they would
seek employment in another state or even another profession when they discovered
that they could enjoy more lucrative compensation elsewhere. If this were
the case in Wyoming, one would expect to see high turnover among experienced
teachers and that most of the teaching force clustered would be at the
lower ranges of experience.
The evidence does not support
a conclusion that salaries paid experienced teachers in Wyoming are sufficiently
lower that alternative employment to encourage an exodus from the state
or the profession. The average teacher tenure in Wyoming is just over eleven
years. Sixty percent of he teachers have over 10 years experience and one
third have been teaching 20 or more years. The largest cohort of teacher
in the state have been were hired 14 years ago.
9 The best available
evidence supporting the utility of computer assisted instruction stems
from Kulic, J.A., Kulic, C. C., And Cohen, P. A., "Effectiveness of Computer
Based College Teaching: A Meta Analysis of Findings," Review of Educational
Research, 1980 Number 50, pp. 525 to 544.
10 Corcoran, Thomas
B. "Transforming Professional Development for Teachers: A Guide for State
Policymakers," Paper prepared for the National Governors' Association (under
contract to CPRE), October 1994. Mullens, John E., et. al., "Student Learning,
Teacher Quality, and Professional Development: Theoretical Linkages and
Current Measurement," Paper prepared for the National Center for Education
Statistics (under contract to Policy Studies Associates), April 1996, draft
only.
11 Free and reduced
lunch is an imperfect measure of the incidence of poor children, particularly
at the secondary level. MAP recommends further study by the State Department
of Education and local school district personnel to establish a more reliable
measure of poverty.
12 Wyoming State
Department of Education form WDE-615 (5/96)
13 Wyoming State
Department of Education form WDE-641
14
Wyoming State Department of Education form WDE-646
15 Earlier drafts
of the model included an adjustment for unusually small districts. Subsequent
refinements of the necessary small school formula have obviated the need
for this adjustment.
16 These definitions
differ from earlier drafts in two important ways. High schools are now
treated separately. This was done to recognize the higher costs associated
with offering specialized programs and student activities. The second change
is the elimination of the provision limiting small school funding to districts
with ADM greater than 2500. Most states that provide necessary small school
funding limit such funding to smaller districts. In the state programs
that MAP reviewed the limit was set at around 2500. Because there was insufficient
information available for MAP to recommend a specific limit in Wyoming,
none was calculated in the model. Removing this limit adds approximately
$7 million to the annual cost to the state.
17 The range of
cost of living differences existing are displayed by school district in
Appendix A.
18 In the discussion
above, "teachers," are used as an example, but the same is true of many
of the products and services school districts purchase. For any product
or service that is bought and sold in a less than fully competitive market,
there is, in principle, a distinction between the prices actually paid
for that product or service and what districts would spend in a pure economic
environment.
19 Insurance carriers
providing health insurance to Wyoming school districts do not offer geographic
rates that vary by regions of the state. For this reason, an adjustment
for school districts based on regional differences of the cost of medical
care would not be justified. It is the case, however, that some carriers
revise rates offered to districts based on the claims experience of those
districts. This claims experience could be affected by regional cost differences,
but MAP had no basis for understanding precisely what this effect might
be.
X. Legislative Discretion
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model is a tool for the Legislature to employ in making decisions that
ultimately result in a block grant for each school district in the state.
In its simplest terms, the model is comprised of (1) education "inputs,"
(2) a unit cost (dollar amounts) for each input, (3) quantities of each
input module, and (4) adjustments to account for unique characteristics
of each school district and its student body.
"Inputs" are resources modules
necessary to educate students. These include personnel (e.g. teachers,
custodians), supplies and equipment, services ( e.g. food services, student
activities), and operations (e.g. transportation, utilities). The inventory
of these resources modules was derived from the advice of Wyoming educators,
review of relevant research, observation of Wyoming school districts, expert
judgments, and other sources. A review of these input components would
reveal few surprises. Most individuals familiar with schools anywhere in
the nation would compile a comparable list. Given the nature of these resources
and the procedures by which they were derived, or until such time as research
reveals new technologies for schooling, it is not recommended that
Wyoming policy makers alter them.
The second feature of the
model is the imputed unit cost for each of the resources used as modular
inputs. These costs were systematically and rationally derived from a variety
of sources. A more complete description of this procedure is provided elsewhere.
While alternative methodologies have been proposed for estimating costs,
it is MAP's judgment that those employed in this model are theoretically
and practically defensible and in many ways superior. Thus, it is not
recommended that Wyoming policy makers alter the unit costs associated
with "inputs" in the model, except to the extent the alterations provide
more up-to-date or accurate information..
As described elsewhere, translating
modular inputs into educational outcomes is far from a precise science.
Within defensible ranges, the quantities, combinations, and applications
of various resources are best determined first by state policy makers,
and ultimately by local educators. The Legislature first adopts a basket
of goods and services which, in its judgment informed by expert advice
and overall state policy, will yield a proper education for all Wyoming
students. The reader is reminded that these decisions are for the purpose
of defining the "basket" and the appropriate cost of the resources contained
in it. The goal of the Cost Based Block Grant Model is to will ensure that
each local district receives sufficient funding to acquire all of the resources
in the model in sufficient quantities to provide a proper education to
every student. Local decision makers retain maximum flexibility to combine
those modular resources in configurations that meet local priorities and
conditions.
Inherent in the design of
the Cost Based Block Grant Model are a set of decisions the Legislature
should make before the full cost implications of the model, both for the
state in total and for individual districts, can be known.computed These
legislative decisions are addressed below.
The Wyoming Legislature,
not unlike Wyoming's citizens and private businesses, does not possess
unlimited resources and thus must consider the potential effectiveness
or likely improved outcomes from each choice, as well as its cost in the
near and long term.
Health Benefits
Currently, there is significant
variation among school districts in the level of health care benefits they
include in employee compensation. Some districts pay all or most of the
cost of health care insurance premiums. Others pay little or nothing toward
these premiums. Because practices are so variable, a statewide average
would bear little relation to the practice of any district. In each of
the model,s MAP has assumed an increased allocationfull assumptionfor
each employee of allfor health care insurance premiums at an annual cost
of approximately $716 per covered employee.$3,641 per employee This
increases the statewide cost of education operations by approximately $8
million and assumes the employee is responsible for a portion of the cost
of the plan. A more comprehensive plan, with the state making the full
contribution, would cost about $18 million. The Legislature should decide
if the current quantity of health care insurance provided by school districts
is adequate or if it believes that the plan should be increased by some
amount. equivalent to up to 100%. Any augmentation for this purpose is,
in fact, an increase in total employee compensation in the model which
school districts can use for this purpose, or for higher salaries or other
purposes local decision makers determine appropriate.
Class Size
There is evidence that smaller
class sizes are related positively to student achievement Unfortunately,
however, there is no compelling research that reveals a direct or linear
relationship between specific changes in the class size and changes in
student learning. Thus, based on the best available evidence, MAP has recommended
ranges where a proper education can be reasonably accommodated. It is not
possible to predict the specific effect of marginal increases or decreases
in class size. Smaller classes seem more likely to produce outcomes superior
to those of larger ratios, but ratios anywhere within recommended ranges
are likely to produce an education that is defensible as proper.
Among the decisions the Legislature
faces, this one carries some of the heaviest cost implications. Small changes
in class sizes have large impacts on the total costs of various options.
As an example, in the following models, a decrease in class size of one
student per class would cost the state an additional $14 million. Conversely,
increasing class size by one carries with it a cost savings of over $12
million.
Within the range of defensible
ratios described in the report, the essence of the decision facing the
Legislature in this case is a determination of the most cost effective
class sizes Wyoming can now afford, considering its total resources and
competing priorities.
Aides and Other Paraprofessionals
Based in large part on the
advice of Wyoming educators consulted by MAP, the Cost Based Block Grant
Model proposes an increase in the number of aides at each school. The justification
for increasing the quantity of this resource to free teachers from nonprofessional
clerical and administrative duties is so that they can spend more time
on instruction and professional development. The Legislature should decide
the appropriateness of this expenditure level in the context of deciding
the desired overall number of adults at a school site and the amount of
funding for professional development. The current model projects one aide
for every 100 students, far beyond the amount currently allocated. MAP
estimates the cost of this resource at approximately $8.5 million.
Instructional Materials
Up-to-date instructional
materials are an important part of a proper education. The model increases
the current allocation $30 per student for textbooks and $15 per student
for library materials. This augmentation would allow replacing, repairing,
and maintaining textbooks and related instructional materials every five
to six years and a substantial increase from the current annual expenditures
for maintaining school library collections. On average, it is more likely
to ensure that every student has access to timely content. The overall
cost of these changes would be approximately $4.4 million.
Technology
Technology seems to hold
promise for improved student knowledge, especially in small remote schools.
Educational technology is in its infancy, and the revolutionary effect
it has had on manufacturing and other business sectors has yet to be substantially
felt by schools. It would be premature to specify the type and quantity
necessary for a proper education. There is a consensus that some amount
of technology is necessary and, within reasonable limits, probably more
is better than less. One limitation on any augmentation would be the ability
of schools to absorb technology and to put it to good use. Therefore, a
phase-in seems appropriate.
In the Cost Based Block Grant
Model, an additional $80 per ADM is contemplated, which is consistent with
recent action by the Legislature. The Wyoming Department of Education's
Technology Plan calls for a one-time expenditure of $73 million and an
annual expenditure of $400 per ADM for maintenance and replacement.
Student Assessment
Elsewhere in this report,
MAP has emphasized the need for comprehensive student assessment as an
important element of an accountability system. Good student assessment
is a good investment. Bad student assessment is worse than none. The model
estimates student assessment costs at $25 per ADM, which is a reasonable
approximation of the annual cost of a system that is a mix of performance
assessments and more traditional tests. The Wyoming Department of Education's
estimate of $50 could be justified rather easily. Even though the model
includes the $25 per ADM in district revenues, MAP strongly recommends
against perpetuating current practices of each district choosing unique
assessment instruments. It is essential that the assessments be standardized,
and for that reason the budget for student assessment may be more appropriately
retained at the state level.
The Wyoming Department of
Education has estimated costs of $2.8 million for developing and maintaining
the student assessment system.
Student Activities
Wyoming educators argue that
student activities are an important element of a proper education. MAP
concurs in that judgment and has included the current level of expenditures
in the model. Based on the advice of Wyoming school officials, the model
allocates $8 per elementary ADM, $54 per middle school ADM, and $167 for
each high school ADM.
Transportation to and from
sports events and other student activities is an integral part of a student
activities program. The simulation includes student activities transportation
funded at its current level. In the future, MAP recommends that funding
for transportation for student activities be linked by formula to the home-to-school
transportation amount. These expenditures bear a logical relationship to
school-to-home transportation and a standard ratio of .10 is consistent
with current expenditure patterns. The Legislature should determine if
the proposed level of reimbursement is consistent with the priority it
places on this expenditure.
Professional Development
Although many school districts
allocate significant resources to the regular improvement of employee skills,
this practice is not universal. It is not reasonable to expect teachers
and other employees to sustain high levels of effectiveness without ongoing,
systematic professional development. This need is well recognized among
high performance organizations in the private sector.
The Cost Based Block Grant
Model contemplates an allocation of between $90 and $100 per ADM (approximately
$1,500 per teacher) for professional development of school district employees.
This amount represents an almost threefold increase in current budgeted
levels. Increases of such a magnitude would cost the state an estimated
$7 million. The budget for this purpose in the private sector would be
somewhat greater. However, school districts can call on other resources
not specifically budgeted in this category for professional development.
Perhaps the largest expenditure for staff development is that part of the
salary schedule that increases teacher salaries for completion of additional
academic units. This amount is currently about $1,800 per teacher in Wyoming.
As a consequence, considering all sources, significant resources would
be available for the continuous enhancement of teaching skills in Wyoming
schools.
As elsewhere, there is little
research to guide the Legislature in its decision. Within reasonable, but
not precisely predictable limits, well-planned, sustained, professional
development is likely to produce better outcomes. The decision, at both
state and local levels, ultimately depends on relative priorities for scarce
resources.
Procedures for Funding
Special Education
MAP proposes that the current
practice of reimbursing special education costs continue in the short term.
However, the state may be better served in the future by converting to
a census-based formula. The rationale for such a formula is discussed elsewhere
in this report. If that recommendation is accepted, the Legislature will
need to decide which disabilities would be fully reimbursed by the state
and the procedures for small districts to appeal their annual allocation
under the formula.
Criteria for Funding Services
for Economically Disadvantaged Students
It is generally recognized
that large concentrations of children from low-income families present
special educational challenges. There is no agreement on what level of
concentration should trigger special services or the specific nature of
those services. The most frequent prescription is some form of increased
adult attention in the school setting. Even at current pupil-teacher ratios,
most Wyoming schools appear to be well positioned to attend to the needs
of these students in the regular classroom. Any enhancements in pupil-teacher
ratios contemplated by the model would further improve districts' abilities
to provide the extra attention that these children need.
In an effort to ensure that
districts with extraordinarily high concentrations of economically disadvantaged
students receive extra resources to provide services to this population,
MAP proposes that school districts with concentrations 1.5 times the state
average of children from poor families receive an additional $500 for each
such student. Whether the trigger for district eligibility is appropriate
depends largely on total resources available and thus upon the interaction
of all the decisions around the model that the Legislature must make. Similarly,
questions regarding the adequacy of the adjustment per eligible student
is somewhat arbitrary, but not at all capricious. It is similar to amounts
allocated for this purpose in other states. Ultimately, the Legislature
should consider phasing in a program which allocates resources on a school-by-school
basis as described above. MAP recommends that decisions on this issue be
revisited when other decisions regarding overall pupil-teacher ratios are
made.
Criteria for Funding Services
for Gifted Students
Similar to the situation
of disadvantaged students, the typical prescription for dealing with the
special needs of gifted students is to offer additional attention from
teachers and other adults at the school and a more challenging curriculum.
Both can be provided comfortably in a school where there are sufficient
numbers of teachers, counselors, and other adults relative to the number
of students. Thus, as discussed above, the very resources needed to serve
this population are being addressed by overall system enhancements. Nevertheless,
Wyoming currently provides $350,000 statewide for up to three percent of
a district's enrollment for programs for gifted students. The model contemplates
that funding be increased to $450,000 and allocated on a more rational
basis as described above.
In addition to deciding whether,
in light of total system augmentations, there is adequate justification
for a program of special funding for this population, the Legislature should
decide what portion of the student population would qualify as gifted.
Until recently, the accepted definition of a gifted student was one who
scored in the top two percent of the population on a standardized test
of intelligence. Many states have modified that definition to include talents
and multiple measures of intelligence. Wyoming presently allows districts
to designate almost any student as gifted. The model assumes three percent.
MAP has no position on the definition chosen but recommends that it be
objective and reasonably limit eligibility to about three percent of the
population. There does not seem to be any reason to believe that any school
district would enroll a disproportionate number of gifted or talented children.
MAP therefore recommends that any resources provided for this purpose be
allocated on a census basis.
Level of Funding for Kindergarten
The current school formula
now considers kindergarten programs half time. The model contemplates the
continuation of the current practice of half-day programs with kindergarten
children counted as half ADM. The cost to provide a full-day program for
all kindergarten children would be approximately $22 million. While there
is not universal support among educators for full-day kindergarten programs,
there is a growing trend toward such programs and a consensus that they
may have a positive effect on subsequent student achievement. The Legislature
should decide if it wishes to fund full-day kindergarten.
Criteria for Funding Services
for Limited-English-Proficient Students
Decisions facing the Legislature
regarding students with limited English proficiency are nearly identical
to those concerning economically disadvantaged students. Based on experience
elsewhere, leavened with professional judgment, MAP proposes that schools
impacted with more than 20 such students at any grade level or when these
students exceed 25 percent of the school's ADM, the district revenues be
adjusted by a factor of 1.15 for each eligible student. This is an area
in which better information is needed regarding definitions and precise
numbers of students. The Legislature should affirm the need for such a
program, the concentrations that trigger extra resources, and the amount
of the adjustment.
Transportation Reimbursement
Formula
MAP recommends minor but
important modifications to home-to-school transportation reimbursement
procedures. The Legislature should decide the minimum travel distance at
which it will standardize reimbursement. Transportation reimbursement is
discussed in more detail earlier in this report.
Definition of Necessary
Small Schools
Unquestionably, small schools
face diseconomies of scale. Elsewhere, MAP analyzes the extent of such
diseconomies. The fundamental question facing the Legislature is, which
of the many small schools in Wyoming exist because of the sparsity of the
population they serve and are thus necessary, which are small because of
local preference, and which are small because of creative interpretation
and application of the definition of a "school?"
MAP proposes a definition
of "small" that includes size as measured by ADM, and "necessary" based
on distances students would have to travel if the school did not exist.
A school is defined as a building or buildings at a geographic location.
The Legislature needs to
decide all elements of this definition, including size, permissible distances
for student travel, definition of a school, and district eligibility.
Many states that provide
extra funding for "necessary small schools" restrict such funding to districts
that are larger than approximately 2,500 students. If the Legislature were
to decide to set such a limit for Wyoming, it should reduce the need for
additional funding by approximately $7 million per year. The Legislature
should decide if the small school adjustment needs to be restricted to
smaller districts.
Factors Included in Cost-of-Living
Adjustment
The Legislature must decide
which cost factors to include in the regional cost of living adjustment.
The options are whether to include health care costs and/or housing costs
in the adjustment. The rationale for MAP's recommendation that neither
be included is found earlier in the report. This decision does have important
cost and distributional implications which should be weighed by the Legislature.
Level of "Cap" on Increased
Funding
The Legislature needs to
decide if the revised formula will be fully implemented in year one or
if it will be phased in over two to three years to allow districts that
receive significantly more money to more effectively absorb the added resources.
Capping increases at 15 percent over prior years' general fund revenues
would allow full implementation in two years. A 10 percent cap over a district's
prior years general fund revenues would allow full implementation in three
years. Depending upon the percentage chosen and the change in overall expenditures,
a cap will reduce the state's obligation each year until the formula is
fully implemented. As an example in one MAP resource model, placing a 15
percent cap on the amount of increases a district can receive in any one
year would save the state approximately $16 million over the first year.
A cap of 10 percent would save the state $32 million in the first year.
It is important to note that this is a one-time savings.
The Legislature needs to
decide if districts whose budgets will be reduced under the revised formula
should be held harmless and to what extent. In the extreme, the expenditures
of these districts could be held constant until such time as the formula
produced a positive revenue change for them. This approach, however, may
be inconsistent with the intent of the Court's decision. A more reasonable,
and perhaps more defensible approach, would be to limit to some percentage
of a district's current revenues the amount of reduction any district would
incur. This practice would increase the overall cost to the state, the
amount depending on the percentage chosen and the overall change in revenues
made available to schools. As an example, in the simulations of the model
discussed in this report, to hold harmless districts which would lose money
under the formula would cost the state about $1.8 million. If the state
were to limit any district's losses to ten percent, the cost to the state
would be a little over $100,000. If the number were five percent, the cost
would be about $707,000.
Teachers' Salaries
At public hearings held throughout
the state, teachers and others were forceful in their views that salaries
were too low to attract sufficient numbers of high-quality professionals.
Nevertheless, MAP's research revealed that Wyoming's salaries were competitive
with those paid in the five contiguous states and with salaries paid other
professionals in Wyoming. The mean salary paid for beginning teachers was
the highest in the region and the mean salary paid was second only to Colorado.
MAP was criticized for comparing
Wyoming's salaries to those in neighboring states, because salaries in
those states are below national averages. However, competitive labor markets
tend to be regional, and it is with these surrounding states Wyoming is
most likely to compete for talent. Although salaries in Connecticut, New
Jersey, New York, and California are significantly higher than those in
Idaho, Utah, Montana, Nebraska, and Colorado, few Wyoming teachers are
likely to trade Wyoming housing prices, tax rates, and quality of life
for the higher pay in those states.
Nevertheless, the Legislature
could decide as a matter of policy to increase teachers' salaries to some
arbitrary standard, such as highest in the six-state region, the national
average, or the top 10 percent in the nation. While the precise costs of
such action can be determined only after the full parameters of the Cost
Based Block Grant Model are decided, it is possible to estimate the effect
of each option by changing the salary level in the Prototypical Models.
The cost of raising the statewide average teacher salary to $36,364, which
would be the highest in the six-state region, would be over $42 million
per year.1 The statewide cost of raising Wyoming teachers' salaries
to the national median of $34,687 would be approximately $27 million per
year. To raise the average salary to the top 10 percent nationally ($44,779)
would cost approximately $120 million per year. These increased costs would
be in addition to amounts displayed on the simulations in the Appendix.
Additional Cost Considerations
A legislative draft bill
which describes the "basket of educational goods and services" proposes
the following material changes to current law:
-
Requires the Wyoming Board of
Education to implement a statewide student assessment program. The costs
of this program are described earlier.
-
Requires the Wyoming Board of
Education to adopt uniform program standards and student performance standards
for the common core of knowledge and skills. The common core of knowledge
is comprised of reading/language skills, social studies, mathematics, science,
art, physical education, health and safety, humanities, career/vocational
options, foreign cultures and languages, applied technology, and government
and civics. The common core of skills is comprised of problem solving;
interpersonal communications; keyboarding and computer applications; critical
thinking; creativity; and life skills, including CPR training.
These standards are considered
necessary to "provide students with sufficient knowledge and skills to
ensure them, at a minimum, an opportunity to enter the University of Wyoming
and Wyoming community colleges, to prepare students for the job market
or advanced vocational and technical training, or to achieve other purposes
of education." It is this definition that MAP interprets as being a "proper
education." The Cost Based Block Grant Model has been designed with this
definition as its goal. The Wyoming Department of Education estimates the
cost of developing standards at $250,000.
-
Sets minimum graduation standards
of four years of English, three years of math, three years of science,
and three years of social studies. The model provides sufficient resources
for every student to be afforded a curriculum which will offer these courses.
-
Increases the school year from
175 days to 185; the additional 10 days are for professional development
of employees. The cost of adding 10 days to the school year depends on
the state's aggregate level of schooling expenditures. However, nearly
all costs associated with a longer school year would be comprised of payroll
and would result in expenditures of an additional $18 million to $20 million.
-
Mandates universal kindergarten
and lowers the minimum school age from six to five. Lowering mandatory
school attendance to age five will have little effect, as kindergarten
attendance is almost universal presently. However, if the Legislature were
to provide funds for full-day kindergarten, rather than the current half
day, the cost would be approximately $22 million.
-
Requires the Wyoming Department
of Education to develop an Education Technology Plan. The cost implications
of that plan are discussed earlier.
The Joint Education Interim
Committee asked MAP to estimate the cost of the following items:
-
Class Size
K-3 20 students per teacher
K-3 17 students per teacher
4-6 24 students per teacher
7-12 80 students per teacher
(English) per day
These costs would depend
on other assumptions, but the model will display estimates of the total
cost of changing class size by any number.
-
Counselors
Assuming existing practices
in Wyoming, it would cost an additional $6 million to provide one counselor
for every 250 K-12 student. The prototypes, however, can accommodate a
somewhat richer ratio in the pupil support category.
-
Librarians
Increasing current staffing
of librarians to a ratio of one to 500 students would cost approximately
$2.5 million. Again, the prototypes contemplate a richer ratio.
-
Nurses
Reducing the current ratio
of school nurses to one to 500 would cost about $4.3 million. The prototypes
do not specify how many nurses a school would hire, but they do provide
for nurses, as well as other specialists, in the pupil support category.
-
Kindergarten
Required attendance in kindergarten
for at least half day. Kindergarten attendance is nearly universal, and
mandating half day would have little impact on total education expenditures.
Increasing kindergarten attendance to full day would cost approximately
$22 million.
-
Other
MAP could not obtain sufficient
information to accurately estimate the cost of restricting the number of
students in writing classes; emphasizing writing across the curriculum;
or early interventions, such as reading recovery. However, any of these
could easily be implemented with the availability of resources contemplated
in the Cost Based Block Grant Model.
END NOTES
1 These calculations
include a pro rata increase in benefits as part of the total cost.
XI. Implementation Considerations
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model requires legislative adoption. However, there are numerous
decision points to be incorporated into the final version. A longer list
of decision points is described in the prior section. In this section,
however, implementation decision points are described which apply particularly
to the overall plan.
Among the decisions that
have to be made are the speed with which to operationalize various provisions.
For example, MAP recommends that a newly suggested approach for funding
disabled students be postponed at least a year because its full benefit
cannot take effect until more precise data are collected about the number
and nature of handicapped students in Wyoming. Similarly, the existing
transportation reimbursement formula, with minor modification, should be
retained, but with refinements that will be possible only when more precise
data can be obtained. Also, the "necessary small school" eligibility formula
cannot operate effectively until a somewhat different data base is assembled.
Another decision regards
the initial-year amounts of new revenue a district might receive, or by
which it should be reduced, as a consequence of new revenue eligibility
computations. Experience suggests that only rarely can a school district
rapidly digest huge percentages of new revenue and continue to deploy all
of its resources wisely. Hence, a "phase in" is often included as a school
finance implementation component.
There is regrettably little
science regarding the speed with which a district can wisely accommodate
large amounts of additional revenue. However, experience in other states
suggests that a ceiling, in year one, of a 10 to 15 percent increase over
the prior year is appropriate. Then, in year two and each year thereafter,
a district might well receive whatever additional revenue to which it was
entitled in similar increments. This increase would continue until a district
is fully compensated for the additional, per-pupil block grant amount for
which it is eligible under the new formula. (In the illustrative simulations
which follow, every revenue "receiving" Wyoming district could be leveled
up within no more than two years, assuming a 15 percent ceiling on new
additional revenues. It would take three years, if the ceiling were placed
at 10 percent.)
The converse is also a legislative
decision point. How much revenue can a district "lose," under a new eligibility
computation, and still offer programs which do not curtail educational
opportunity for its students? Here, also, there is insufficient technical
knowledge. However, experience with budget reductions suggests that absorbing
more than a five or 10 percent decrease in a year is difficult. Thus, the
Legislature will have to deliberate regarding the speed with which revenues
are reduced for districts so affected.
Moreover, the Legislature
will have to determine whether or not to reduce districts at all. Holding
a district "harmless" is, also, sometimes accomplished by freezing its
current per-pupil revenue levels and not granting annual cost-of-living
adjustments until other districts in the state eligible for revenue increases
gain per-pupil revenue parity.
Buttressing State Administrative
Capacity
The proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model has implications for the state's administrative role. The Wyoming
Department of Education will have enhanced obligations in obvious areas,
such as greater leadership in fiscal accounting. In addition, however,
particularly if the Legislature decides to take advantage of the opportunity
to link the model with measurements and accountability, the Wyoming Department
of Education will need to lead on matters such as achievement testing.
State leadership in other areas, such as curriculum, use of instructional
technology, and distance learning, would assist in achieving greater equality
and effectiveness for "necessary small schools." Finally, the model calls
for greater and more detailed amounts of performance information on dimensions
related to special education, transportation, "necessary small schools,"
and facilities construction. Taken as a whole, the future picture is one
of an even more dynamic Wyoming Department of Education.
In addition, state leadership
will be necessary on other administrative dimensions. The Regional Price
Adjustment included in the model approach necessitates accurate and timely
survey data regarding prices of items in a constantly shifting market basket
of consumer goods and services. Consequently, enhancing the capacity of
the Division of Administration and Information is also in order.
XII. Accounting and Information
Collection Implications
Wyoming presently relies
upon accounting procedures adapted from the uniform code of accounts promoted
by the United States Department of Education. In so doing, the state's
financial reporting and accounting procedures and definitions are generally
consistent with what takes place throughout the remainder of the nation
for local school districts. For most purposes, at least in the past, these
procedures may have been sufficient. However, as Wyoming undertakes a transition
to a cost-based model of school revenue distribution, these accounting
and information procedures will need to be enhanced.
Implementation of several
proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model reform features depend upon better
fiscal and program information than now exists. Second, in keeping with
the Wyoming Supreme Court's decision in Campbell, greater fiscal and program
information will be needed to monitor equity. Third, the relative absence
of local discretion over revenue generation opens a larger prospect of
citizen disengagement from fiscal matters and a wider window for financial
misfeasance. Steps to enhance the state's fiduciary role are, therefore,
in order. Finally, better accounting information, linked with better student
performance information from a new assessment system, can contribute to
a far better technical understanding of education and the processes that
can render it more productive.
Improved Information.
At several points in this report, mention has been made of a proposed reform
being suspended until more precise information becomes available. For example,
MAP suggests in an earlier section the definition of "necessary small schools"
wait a year or two so that information regarding existing small schools
and student transport times and distance data could be accumulated. Similarly,
reference has previously been made to the need for more precise data regarding
students' disabling conditions prior to implementing a proposed "Census"
model for special education.
Equity. Ensuring that
every Wyoming child benefits from resources sufficient to ensure a "proper"
education will necessitate collecting data on a school-by-school basis.
No longer will district-wide expenditure data be sufficient. School-based
accounts will need to be designed and implemented. Modern computer programs
can ease this burden, but this is a labor intensive enterprise which will
require the extensive participation and support of school district business
officials.
Fiduciary Oversight.
Block grants appropriately empower professional educators, parents, and
students with authority for deciding the mix of resources most likely to
meet local needs and priorities. In return for the flexibility inherent
in block grants, local decision makers must be accountable for wisely spending
the taxpayer's money. Consistent with the Wyoming Supreme Court's decision,
the state bears ultimate responsibility for the prudent and effective expenditure
of education funding. Most informed observers concur that the most effective
way for states to honor that responsibility is to hold school educators
accountable for outcomes.
Specifying use of and restrictively
measuring inputs is inconsistent with the philosophy underlying a block
grant and rarely yields significant payoff in improved education. Schooling
and instruction involve literally thousands of decisions every week regarding
a classroom of students. Prescribing those decisions from a central authority
simply makes no sense. Hence, measuring desired outcomes is a far more
productive approach for accountability purposes.
It is beyond the scope of
this report to specify all the features of an accountability system, but
at a minimum it should include multiple measures of student performance,
such as growth and level of achievement, attendance and retention rates,
and parent satisfaction. Fundamental to the effectiveness of any accountability
system is that there be consequences for failure to meet expectations.
An equally important and closely related element of accountability is assurance
that school districts do not incur financial obligations that jeopardize
instructional programs or long-term viability.
In other states, school districts
have found themselves technically bankrupt when their projected expenditures
exceeded future revenues. This situation most typically happens when long-term
commitments for capital construction or for employee compensation are made
based on uncertain projections of future revenues. It is more likely to
happen when the districts' abilities to raise additional revenues are constrained
as they now will be in Wyoming. It is for this reason that MAP strongly
urges the Legislature take the following measures.
First, current budgeting
and accounting procedures employed by local school districts should be
standardized. MAP has described various shortcomings in the existing system
which illustrate the need for more reliable data. Second, budgets and expenditure
reports should be submitted to the state, in sufficient detail and with
sufficient frequency, to ensure timely analysis and response. Third, the
Wyoming Department of Education should develop a contingency plan for a
timely and effective response when a school district is discovered to be
in financial difficulty. Fourth, the Wyoming Department of Education should
develop a strategy aimed at general improvement of business practices in
local school districts.
MAP encourages the Legislature
and Wyoming Department of Education to develop any accountability system
deliberately, carefully, and with appropriate involvement of those being
held accountable.
Technical Efficiency.
Financial accounting and program information changes, such as those suggested
here — particularly if they are based upon the individual school as the
operating unit — hold great promise of enhancing knowledge of the instructional
process. Research regarding the relationship of fiscal resources to instructional
outcomes is only rarely undertaken in education. Student performance data,
based upon schools, when linked to components of a Cost Based Block Grant
Model, can contribute to far more precise knowledge. For example, if a
set of Wyoming schools consistently over performs on school tests, relative
to what would be predicted based upon the social and economic characteristics
of its students, then it becomes a ripe site for exploring how it deploys
its resources so that others could benefit from such knowledge.
XIII.
Simulations
How does the
simulation program operate?
The simulation program
is based upon a standard, computerized spreadsheet (Excel). Into the computer
program are placed 1995-96 data for each of Wyoming's 49 school districts.
For each district the model contains total enrollments; and students' characteristics,
such as grade levels, disabilities, and household income proxies.
The simulation model also
contains a calculating dimension for each of the previously listed 25 Cost
Based Block Grant Model instructional and operational components (e.g.,
teachers, aides, librarians, and textbooks). Each of these individual model
components has an imputed unit cost, a dollar amount. Thus, the interaction
of a district's characteristics (e.g., number and grade levels of students)
with legislatively determined quantities of a component (class size) can
result in a computation for the an individual school's revenue eligibility
on that specific dimension. The sum of each of these computations across
all dimensions determines an entire school's revenue eligibility. Similar
computations are made for operating items that are district based (e.g.,
transportation, maintenance, administration, whether or not there is a
"necessary small school," and numbers of disabled students). The sum of
all school revenues and all district revenues, when multiplied by the regional
cost-of-living adjustment, comprises a district's block grant eligibility.
The simulation model lends
itself to alternative decision scenarios. For example, the Legislature
can probe the statewide financial and local district distributional consequences
of altering class size, subsidies for scale diseconomies (small schools),
and aid for students from low-income households.
Finally, the simulation model
not only can provide alternative scenarios and local district revenue eligibility
comparisons, it facilitates comparisons of any proposed new plans with
the distributional consequences of the status quo. A local school district's
present revenues, both in the aggregate and per pupil, are loaded into
the model and thus, the model can be simulate comparisons of the status
quo with proposed changes.
The computer simulation program
can be updated each year with the most recent school and district data.
If any legislative alterations are made to quantities of model components,
these too can be altered in the model's calculation capacity. Thereafter,
simulations can proceed accurately in future years.
What does a simulation
look like?
The following pages present
several alternative simulations. These are illustrations. They
are not recommendations. They must remain illustrative until the Wyoming
Legislature makes the numerous decisions needed to crystallize the model.
The distributional consequences
for each Wyoming school district can be observed from each simulation.
One simulation assumes that current statewide, mean per-pupil-spending
levels are retained, but the new proposed distribution formula is deployed
to distribute such revenues. This is a "Low Cost" steady state model.
A second illustrative simulation
assumes a "Leveling-up" strategy in which low-revenue districts are "leveled
up" to match the expenditure levels of high-revenue districts. This strategy
is a very "High Cost" model; it brings revenue distributions into line,
but it is extremely expensive for the state.
A third illustration assumes
substantial augmentations of existing spending patterns: lower class size,
additional professional and classified staff, increases in spending for
instructional materials, professional development, and instructional equipment.
A fourth illustrative simulation
provides healthy augmentations over the existing budget levels, but it
is less generous on those dimensions than the third model. The fourth simulation
contains class sizes which reside in a zone of effectiveness as determined
by educational research. The simulation has many of the features of the
third model, but it would be less expensive for the state to implement.
In all cases the additional
revenues required are calculated as an annual amount. These amounts would
be doubled for the state's biennium budget.
APPENDIX
Introduction
This Appendix explains, in
step-by-step fashion, the manner in which the Proposed Cost Based Block
Grant Model operates. Before beginning, a few caveats are in order:
• First, and foremost,
this section is intended to inform the reader about how the model operates.
It does not set forth an ideal school finance distribution formula
for Wyoming—that is not what MAP has been asked to do. In these examples,
relative quantities of resources in the model are illustrative.
• Secondly, this explanation
relies upon the most recent data available. However, some of the calculations
may change as more current information becomes available. Also, results
may change as different assumptions are made.
• Third, the fact that the
model is cost-based does not mean that districts are required to expend
funds in the same categories employed by the model to determine eligibility.
The state's responsibility is to provide resources. Local districts bear
the responsibility of organizing and expending resources in a manner which
is educationally sound for their students.
• Fourth, the prototypical
schools and assumed grade configurations were constructed at a size and
grade-level span for analytical purposes. They are not intended to suggest
that all schools should have the same grade configuration or be of that
size. Wyoming has a long history of local independence on this dimension,
and the effect of the model is intended to be neutral upon such decisions.
Although the model is based on schools of a specific size, special attention
is given to small schools in the formula.
Every effort has been made to
render the model rational and understandable. However, any school finance
mechanism, especially one required to respond to specific court parameters,
contains complexity. This explanation attempts to balance this complexity
with the need for policy makers to understand the underlying rationale
behind the decisions they make regarding the distribution of resources
for education.
The first step in building
the proposed model was to define a set of grade levels and school sizes
that could serve as analytical guideposts for later components. With the
advice of groups of highly qualified Wyoming educators, MAP developed three
prototypes: an elementary and middle school of approximately equal size
(300 students) and a high school of roughly twice that size (600 students).
Critical components for any school operation were identified, and costs
were ascribed (using current Wyoming expenditure data) for each component.
The next phase in the development
of a model is to determine how many of which components need to be in place
to provide a "proper" education for the children of Wyoming. Final decisions
on this task await the Wyoming Legislature over the next few months. The
model should be seen as an analytical tool by which legislative decisions
can more rationally be made.
Three prototypes are
presented in the following section. Each prototype is accompanied by a
table which displays district-by-district impact. This table is done in
an Excel spreadsheet, which is linked in such a way that the statewide
and district-by-district changes can be seen immediately for any alterations
in the prototypes, or in any adjustments made to the model.
The explanation begins with
the elementary school prototype, using some specific examples. The explanation
then examines special provisions added to address specific issues faced
by the Wyoming Legislature in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. The
final stage concentrates on district-by-district impacts and implications
created by various policy choices on statewide costs.
The Elementary Prototype
For purposes of this example,
MAP has created an elementary school with a K-5 grade configuration with
an ADM of 288 students. The model lists the components down the left-hand
column and displays numbers and total dollar amounts down the right-hand
column. These numbers are then summed to a total cost for an elementary
school, and the total is divided by ADM to generate a per-ADM cost. For
each category, important assumptions are made, and it is the purpose of
this section to explore the prototype's components, describe these assumptions,
and allow the reader to envision additional assumptions to test on future
iterations of the model.
A. Personnel
1. Teachers
The largest single dollar
category in the model encompasses costs for teachers. Decisions regarding
numbers of teachers and teacher compensation have the largest weight in
determining total school, district, and state expenditure patterns. There
are several facets of this decision. The first is class size. Determining
average class size in a school plays a huge role in the determination of
total school, district, and state expenditures.
In the illustrative school,
class sizes are assumed to be 15 for grades K-3 and 18 for grades 4 and
5, for a class size average of 16 students for the entire school. These
class-size figures generate 18 teachers in the prototypical elementary
school. Also, revenues are added for two full-time-equivalent teachers
to augment subjects not covered in regular classes, such as visual and
performing arts, physical education, and foreign language; and specialists
for teaching reading and mathematics. The purpose here is to afford schools
the flexibility to employ additional teachers who best meet the needs of
their students. The 18 teachers in regular classrooms, plus the two specialist
teachers, provide 20 full-time-equivalent teachers for the illustrative
school.
The next step is to determine
teacher costs. It is important, when discussing employees, to examine the
costs of their total compensation package. Therefore, teacher costs are
displayed in three columns. The first represents an average salary cost
per teacher in Wyoming. The figure in this column is comprised of three
discrete parts:
(1) base salary, which
equals the average beginning salary paid to teachers in the state,
(2) adjustment for collegiate
units and degrees beyond the bachelor's degree and,
(3) adjustment to the base
salary for years of experience, or seniority.
For purposes of the model, an
average adjustment for seniority has been made, but this topic will be
revisited later when district-by-district seniority adjustments will be
discussed. At that point district-by-district adjustments for differences
in seniority will be computed. Mandated benefits are costed in the next
column. These typically include items such as retirement and Social Security.
Contributions for these benefits are normally calculated as an automatic
percentage of salary costs (in Wyoming they approximate 19 percent).1
The next column represents
health benefits. An increase over current expenditures is displayed. There
is significant variance in health benefits among Wyoming's districts, with
some employees receiving full coverage and little or no employee contribution,
while others have only minimal coverage. The model displays an increase
in the average health care coverage of approximately $716 to provide more
adequate base line coverage for Wyoming employees.2
2. Substitute Teachers3
Substitutes are funded at
current estimated rates of $60 per day, assuming an average teacher absentee
rate of five percent. With a 175-day school year, the formula yields .9
FTE.
3. Aides
Aides in Wyoming are compensated
at approximately $12,000 per year on average. Most are part-time and are
ineligible for health benefits. Aides can be most useful in relieving teachers
of non-professional activities, such as before- and after-school playground
supervision, lunch duty, and other routine tasks which do not necessarily
require professional expertise. Expert groups that advised MAP suggested
that roughly one aide (FTE) per 100 students would be desirable. That increase
is costed in the model.
4. Pupil Support
This category includes three
types of pupil support personnel: counselors, nurses, and school social
workers. Given the changing nature of students in Wyoming and the increased
expectations placed on school performance, investing in additional pupil
support services was deemed by Wyoming education experts to be appropriate.
These services are costed at the same rate as a classroom teacher. The
allocation calls for 1.5 pupil-support-personnel, which can be configured
in the way most appropriate for the school. For example, one school may
opt to have a full-time nurse and half-time counselor; another may have
three half-time people, one in each category.
5. Library/Media
MAP site visits and expert
groups confirmed that library/media was an area where Wyoming should improve.
Given the Court's expectations that all students receive a "proper" education,
providing access to media and other library materials appears particularly
important. The model includes one full-time-equivalent professional position
for this function. A school may choose to utilize these dollars by hiring
a full-time librarian or by allocating these dollars for a blend of a part-time
librarian, part-time media assistant, and part-time technician, or any
combination.
6. School Administration
Average salary and benefits
paid an elementary principal are included.
7. and 8. Clerical/Data
Entry and Operations
The clerical/data entry
and school operations personnel costs are very close to the current patterns
on average pay and average total cost.
B. Supplies and
Instructional Materials
The dollar figure displayed
here includes the approximate current Wyoming average cost for an elementary
student for supplies. High school costs in this category are substantially
higher. The model also includes an augmentation of the instructional materials
budget of $30 per ADM to include sufficient revenue to allow a five- or
six-year cycle for textbook purchase, replacement, and renewal. This increase
is significant, but it falls short of the Wyoming Department of Education's
recommendations. In addition, the model includes a $15 per ADM augmentation
for library materials, approximately doubling the current expenditure level.
C. Instructional
Equipment
For purposes of the model,
the typical allocation for instructional equipment has been augmented.
It has been difficult to obtain a precise estimate for annual average expenditures
for instructional equipment (e.g., computers, televisions, VCRs, and overhead
projectors). However, it is clear that Wyoming will need to allocate additional
dollars in this category if students are to experience the level of proper
instruction expected by the Court. The model projects an additional $80
per ADM to launch the process of computer purchases. This amount is significantly
higher than current expenditure levels and is close to the figure recommended
by the legislative committee, but it falls short of the Wyoming Department
of Education's estimate of $400 per student.
D. Food Service
This function is expected
to be self-supporting, with the exception of small, remote schools which
cannot hope to provide meals to students at cost. This factor will be considered
in the "necessary small school" formula.
E. Categorical Aid
1. Special Education
For purposes of this illustration,
the statewide average state and local costs for special education have
been included. Currently, districts are reimbursed for 85 percent of their
special education costs — the other 15 percent must come from existing
district resources. The prototype displays statewide average costs, but
later adjustments provide the full actual amount for special education
expenditures for each district.4
The body of this report suggests
that consideration be given, after appropriate study, to an alternative
method for funding special education. However, for purposes of this illustration,
it is assumed that total state and local costs are included in the model.
Later, when district-by-district allocations are considered, this statewide
average is replaced with actual district costs for reimbursement purposes.
2. and 3. Economically
Disadvantaged and Limited-English-Speaking Children.
The incidence of these students
is uneven (and currently unknown) across the state — some districts have
several; some have none. Thus, there is no statewide dollar amount appropriate
to provide services to such students. Later in this illustration, when
statewide adjustments are considered, a provision which allocates dollars
to these students in districts where the impact is greatest will be introduced.
4. Gifted
The model includes an allocation
for gifted students which represents a modest augmentation over existing
revenue amounts, and which would provide every district $150 for three
percent of its student body. This amount would be included in the existing
formula to serve gifted and talented students in every district.
F. Student Activities
Student activities play an
important role in education in Wyoming. A dollar amount based upon an estimate
of current expenditures for this purpose has been included.5
G. Professional Development
As best as MAP can ascertain
from existing district financial records, Wyoming schools now spend approximately
$38 per pupil on staff development. Given the substantial needs generated
by proposed school reform laws, increased accreditation requirements, new
expectations regarding student performance, and the changing social and
economic complexity of Wyoming's students, the model includes a significant
increase in this category to approximately 1.5 percent of the district's
general fund budget. This amount converts to about $90 to $100 per ADM,
depending on grade level.
H. Assessment
As the state moves to a system
expected to be more accountable for results, it is important that consideration
be given to assisting districts in paying for the increased costs related
to a statewide testing program. The Wyoming Department of Education is
recommending approximately $50 per pupil for operating costs. The model
includes $25 per pupil to initiate the testing program. Significant developmental
costs will need to be incurred by the state as well.
I. District Expenditures
Prototypical models focus
on schools as the primary unit of analysis. But district offices, too,
are important for providing leadership, services, and structure to what
takes place in schools. The prototypical models include costs of these
centralized functions. In addition, there are other categories of expenditures
where the locus of the expenditures is not appropriately school based.
In these cases, they are assigned to the district. It is important to note
that this category includes a large portion of "other" and not just central
office expenditures
For the categories of operations
and maintenance and administration, the model approximates current expenditure
patterns and makes no suggested augmentations. The body of this report
discusses an operations and maintenance formula which should be pursued
in the future.
Transportation deserves special
mention. It is highly variable among districts and, like special education,
requires a placeholder for the statewide average amount in the formula.
Later, the model will substitute that amount with actual district expenditures
for both home-to-school and student activities transportation. MAP recommends
that districts be placed under a more coherent statewide transportation
policy, so that the state is subsidizing the same activity in each district.
MAP also recommends that, if feasible, student activities transportation
be funded based on some reasonable percentage relationship to home-to-school
transportation.
These, then, are the principal
components that comprise the typical school expenditure pattern for an
elementary school. MAP has attempted to describe the manner in which the
model operates on a component-by-component basis. A similar set of assumptions
has been made for middle schools and high schools.
Policy makers can use this
model to simulate a virtually limitless set of options, such as to assess
the impact of increasing or decreasing class size, increasing teachers'
salaries or benefits, and augmenting the budget to provide for more instructional
resources. Whatever set of options is chosen, a cost-per-ADM number will
be derived for each level of schooling. Districts will generate revenue
by multiplying their ADM per grade level by the appropriate per-ADM amount
(for elementary the number in the model is $6,165, found in the lower right-hand
corner of the page). This number will be fed into another spread sheet
and multiplied by the number of K-5 youngsters in the state to derive district-by-district
impact and to arrive at a figure representing the statewide costs of contemplated
changes.
Following the elementary
prototype are the middle school and high school prototypes, which will
not be reviewed on an item-by-item basis, since most of the comments would
be similar or even identical. The next step is to link the elements in
the Prototypical Model to district-by-district impact tables.
District-by-District and
Statewide Impact
In order to ascertain the
total impact of a formula on a district or to assess the impact of any
change in any component, the spreadsheet is designed to display district-by-district
figures as well as statewide impacts. The prototypes are linked to this
model, and when combined they produce a statewide composite model-funding
level.
In this spread sheet, districts
are listed alphabetically with the current ADM in the next column and general
fund revenue per ADM in the last full fiscal year (1995-96). The revenue
per ADM amount (Column 3) is the amount against which any new models will
need to be assessed. Districts and the state need to know the implications
of any proposed changes, or the cumulative implications of several changes.
Whichever the case, the first place districts naturally will look will
be to see how the new formula compares with the old. Are they better or
worse off than before? Legislators, too, will pay attention to these numbers,
which reflect what will happen to local constituents' schools. In addition,
legislators will be particularly interested in assessing cost implications
of any proposed change. With this model they will be able to compare and
contrast the statewide impact of any number of important variables and
to make rational judgments about the relative weight to be given to any
changes they may be considering, both in terms of the impact on their constituents
and cost implications for the state.
Column 4 is a composite figure
determined by averaging the three prototypes to arrive at one statewide
figure. The dollar amounts are appropriately weighted to reflect the varying
numbers of students in elementary, middle and high schools within each
district.
Earlier, highly variable
costs associated with special education, transportation, and activities
transportation were discussed. In Column 5, the statewide averages in the
illustrative model are now replaced by actual expenditures of each district.
This revision is accomplished by subtracting statewide average allocations
for these three categories from the model, and then replacing them with
the actual per-ADM amounts for each district. For example, the number in
Column 4 for Albany #1, Laramie, represents the base model, minus
the state average for special education, transportation and activities
transportation, plus actual district expenditures for those three
categories. It is important to note that although the revenue number is
no longer uniform, it is cost based. It fits the Wyoming Supreme Court's
edict that the state's school finance program be rationally based on costs.
The next several columns
all represent adjustments to the base formula. Again, it is important to
note that all of these adjustments are made with specific assumptions in
mind. Throughout, every effort to be explicit about assumptions will be
made. The model quite easily adapts to other assumptions. It is also important
to reemphasize that these are mainly examples of adjustments that might
be made.
Necessary Small Schools
The first set of adjustments
occurs for small schools in Column 6. The small schools are identified
by the districts in which they are located. MAP has suggested a definition
of "necessary small school" which the Legislature can consider. It is not
possible to precisely ascertain which of the current small schools meet
this definition.
The adjustment for small
school size is based on a Prototypical Model for a school of 10 students,
much in the same way that MAP designed the prototypes for larger schools
by identifying the key components of schooling, ascribing a cost to them,
and determining the appropriate quantity for each. Even more so than larger
schools, small schools' budgets are dominated by personnel costs. Very
small schools, those with 30 ADM and under, obviously have special circumstances
which do not permit their class sizes to reach the levels identified in
the model.
Elementary School
MAP proposes a cost-model-based
small elementary school formula, which assigns a specific dollar amount
per pupil to students in a prototypical school of 10 students. All students
enrolled in schools with ADM between one and 10 would receive a flat dollar
amount based on that computation (i.e. 10 x $8,925=$89,246) . Students
in schools of ADM between 11 and 20 would receive double that amount (i.e.
$178,493), and students in schools with ADM between 21 and 30 would receive
three times that amount ($267,739). From ADM of 31 to ADM of 199 (the limit
of the small school differential), schools would receive a graduated rate
per additional student, which decreases gradually for each additional student
until the 200-ADM threshold is reached, at which point the per-ADM amount
would equal the elementary revenue per-ADM for the prototypical elementary
school. Concomitant with this formula are two additional notions: for one-teacher
schools, the state reimburses for actual costs or the costs generated by
the formula, whichever is less; secondly, eligibility for additional dollars
is tied to the employment of additional teachers. A school of 12 students
with only one teacher would be eligible only for the allocation provided
a school of 10 students or less.
Elementary
School Size
|
Teachers
|
Block Grant
|
1-10
|
1
|
$89,246
|
11-20
|
2
|
$178,493
|
21-30
|
3
|
$267,739
|
High School
MAP proposes a cost-model-based
small high school formula which assigns a specific dollar amount per pupil
to students in a prototypical high school of 16 students (i.e. 16 x $10,136
= $162,173). All students enrolled in schools with ADM between one and
16 would receive a flat dollar amount based on that computation. Students
in schools of between 17 and 32 students would receive double that amount
($324,345), and students in schools with ADM between 32 and 48 would receive
three times that amount ($486,518). From ADM of 49 to ADM of 399 (the limit
of the small high school differential), schools would receive a graduated
rate per additional student. This rate would decrease gradually for each
additional student until the 400-ADM threshold is reached, at which point
the per-ADM amount would equal the high school revenue per ADM for the
prototypical high school.
High School
School Size
|
Teachers
|
Block Grant
|
1-16
|
2
|
$162,173
|
17-32
|
4
|
$324,345
|
33-48
|
6
|
$486,518
|
In this model, each
student would generate the dollar amount he or she is eligible for under
the regular formula for elementary and high schools — the difference
between what the regular formula would generate and what the small school
formula would generate would be added to the amount.6
MAP has chosen to merge
the elementary and middle school formulae into one K-8 model. For middle
schools the formula makes a simple adjustment to correct for the increased
costs associated with those programs. The model assumes that only the elementary
amount is deducted to determine the total received by the formula.7
The simulations which
are attached make two notable assumptions, which tend to overestimate the
cost of this provision of the model and the district-by-district impact.
The model assumes that all small schools are "necessary." If the Legislature
adopts a definition of "necessary small schools", the model will cost less.
Secondly, the model assumes that all one-teacher models are funded at the
maximum amount, and that would likely not be the case.
Necessary Small
Districts
In earlier versions
of this model, MAP included a small district formula, which awarded $100,000
for each small district of less than 400 ADM. This version does not contain
such a factor. But it is left in the spreadsheet (Column 7), in case in
the future a small district formula is deemed worthwhile.
Economically Disadvantaged/Limited-English-Speaking
Youth
The model calls for
small classes and additional pupil support services for each child. Even
with that, there may be districts in which such large numbers of at-risk
students reside, causing a critical mass of needy students who may require
special treatment beyond that provided in a less impacted school (Column
8). The model provides that eligible students in districts which have over
one-and-one-half times the state average of their children eligible for
free and reduced price lunches (a proxy for economic need) be qualified
for a $500 per pupil amount to assist students in need. There are only
a few school districts in Wyoming so impacted. This provision speaks directly
to the Court's concern about at-risk students. Obviously, the allowance,
the percentage for eligibility, and the method for identifying at-risk
youngsters can vary. This factor is intended to be a first step in ultimately
arriving at a new formula for economically disadvantaged youth, which would
be on a school-by-school basis.
Limited-English-speaking
students form a small but growing segment of Wyoming's population. These
students, too, may require special assistance. Many of them will be in
schools covered by the Economically Disadvantaged Youth program described
above. The same principles apply for these children. Small classes, individualized
instruction, and increased pupil support personnel could enhance these
students' opportunities to learn. But for those districts that enroll large
numbers of these students, some form of state aid may be necessary to enable
them to be able to benefit from a "proper" education.
Teacher Seniority
Seniority among the
teaching staff is an important cost consideration over which districts
have little control. This adjustment (Column 9) modifies dollar amounts
set forth in the component models, upward or downwards, depending on the
actual seniority of district personnel. If districts are to be able to
compensate their employees fairly, such a factor is advisable.
Column 10 is the new
modified revenue per ADM, taking into account the adjustments above.
Regional Cost-of-Living
Adjustment
The final adjustment
to the base is an adjustment for regional differences in cost of living
(see Column 11). The formula MAP employed for assessing regional cost of
living is explained in the report's text. The premise undergirding this
provision is that it is necessary, in order to provide districts with equal
opportunity to employ personnel of comparable quality, to be competitive
by adjusting for higher cost of living in some areas of the state.
Column 12 shows revised
revenue per ADM.
Again, variations on
this formula are possible. This particular adjustment excludes housing
and medical. Having housing in or out of the formula has a large impact
on distribution.
Change in Revenue
per ADM
Column 13 displays
whether this model, with this particular configuration of provisions, provides
each district with greater or fewer general fund resources than current
law. Any state redistribution effort, especially one designed to comply
with the tightly constrained court mandates, will have differential impacts
on districts. This formula is no exception. Column 14 contains total change
in annual revenue per district. The number at the bottom of Column 14 contains
the total first-year cost minus the gain limit discussed below.
At this point, the
Legislature has several options. These options are displayed in the next
few columns.
Hold Harmless
One option for the
Legislature is to "hold harmless" districts that lose revenues, freeze
their revenues at current levels, do not permit revenue increases over
time, and allow the rest of the districts to catch up (Column 15). A hold-harmless
provision of this nature has the advantage of providing no harm to the
districts which would otherwise lose money, but it has the disadvantage
of costing the state money and possibly running afoul of the Court (depending
on the time it would take for the other districts to catch up).
Gain or Loss Limits
Another option is to
place a limit both on the amount of money districts can gain or lose in
any one year. It can be argued that districts have difficulty absorbing
large spending increases quickly and, thus, it may be prudent for the state
to phase in the increases. Column 16 displays district-by-district dollar
savings available to the state by such a limit.
Conversely, it can
be argued that sustaining a large revenue loss in any one year can be catastrophic,
and these losses should by limited by some amount. For purposes of the
model, a 15 percent limit for formula gainers and a 10 percent limit for
formula losers has been chosen. Limiting districts to a 15 percent gain
would save the state significant sums for two years (but districts remain
entitled to those funds in future years).
Cost Implications
Another valuable feature
of the model is its ability to display the total state costs of adding
or subtracting any variable or combination of variables. For example, by
holding all elements in the model constant and by changing any one, two,
or more variables, Wyoming policy makers can assess the state cost implications
of even the slightest policy change. Policy makers can also easily compare
costs associated with two equally desirable policy options and take costs
into consideration when arriving at their decisions. Conversely, policy
makers can immediately see what a given dollar amount buys in terms of
policy choices.
Prototypes
WYOMING PROTOTYPICAL
MODEL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
K-5; 288 STUDENTS; CLASS SIZE 16;
PUPIL/TEACHER RATIO
14.4
PRELIMINARY COSTS
Description |
Units
|
Salary Cost
|
Mand. Benefits
|
Health Benefits
|
Total Cost
|
A.
Personnel |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Teachers |
20
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$828,660
|
2.
Substitute Teachers (5%) |
.9
|
$10,500
|
$803
|
|
$10,173
|
3.
Aides (FTE) |
3
|
$10,080
|
$1,915
|
|
$35,986
|
4.
Pupil Support |
1.5
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$62,150
|
5.
Library/Media |
1
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$41,433
|
Certif.
Librarian |
|
|
|
|
|
Media
Assistant |
|
|
|
|
|
Technician |
|
|
|
|
|
6.
School Administration |
1
|
$50,877
|
$9,667
|
$3,641
|
$64,185
|
7.
Clerical/Data Entry |
2
|
$16,000
|
$3,040
|
$3,641
|
$45,362
|
8.
Operations |
2.5
|
$20,000
|
$3,800
|
$3,641
|
$68,603
|
Description |
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
B.
Supplies and |
|
|
|
|
$61,950
|
Instructional
Materials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
Equipment |
|
|
|
|
$37,837
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.
Food Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.
Categorical Aid |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Special Education |
|
|
|
|
$152,514
|
2.
Limited English Speaking
(see spread sheet) |
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Disadvantaged Youth
(see spread sheet) |
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Gifted |
|
|
|
|
$1,296
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.
Student Activities |
|
|
|
|
$2,167
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G.
Professional Development |
|
|
|
|
$26,352
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
$7,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.
District Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Maintenance and Operations |
|
|
|
|
$93,064
|
2.
Administration and miscellaneous expenditures |
|
|
|
|
$159,323
|
3.
Transportation |
|
|
|
|
$77,180
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
288
|
|
|
Total
Cost
|
$1,775,433
|
|
|
|
|
Adj.$/ADM
|
$6,165
|
Prototypes
WYOMING PROTOTYPICAL
MODEL
MIDDLE/JUNIOR HIGH
6-8; 300 STUDENTS; CLASS SIZE 20;
PUPIL/TEACHER RATIO
15.4
PRELIMINARY COSTS
Description |
Units
|
Salary Cost
|
Mand. Benefits
|
Health Benefits
|
Total Cost
|
A.
Personnel |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Teachers |
19.5
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$807,944
|
2.
Substitute Teachers(5%) |
1
|
$10,500
|
$803
|
|
$11,021
|
3.
Aides (FTE) |
3
|
$10,080
|
$1,915
|
|
$35,986
|
4.
Pupil Support |
3
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$124,299
|
5.
Library Media |
|
|
|
|
|
Certificated
Librarian |
1
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$41,433
|
Media
Assistant |
1.5
|
$18,000
|
$3,420
|
$3,641
|
$37,592
|
Tech.
Assistant |
|
|
|
|
|
6.
School Administration |
1
|
$50,792
|
$9,650
|
$3,641
|
$64,083
|
7.
Clerical/Data Entry |
2
|
$16,000
|
$3,040
|
$3,641
|
$45,362
|
8.
Operations |
3
|
$20,000
|
$3,800
|
$3,641
|
$82,323
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
B.
Supplies and |
|
|
|
|
$56,887
|
Instructional
Materials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
Equipment |
|
|
|
|
$43,880
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.
Food Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.
Categorical Aid |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Special Education |
|
|
|
|
$158,869
|
2.
Limited English Speaking
(see spread sheet) |
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Disadvantaged Youth
(see spread sheet) |
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Gifted |
|
|
|
|
$1,350
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.
Student Activities |
|
|
|
|
$16,179
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G.
Professional Development |
|
|
|
|
$27,450
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
$7,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.
District Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Maintenance and Operations |
|
|
|
|
$112,500
|
2.
Administration and miscellaneous categories |
|
|
|
|
$165,961
|
3.
Transportation |
|
|
|
|
$80,396
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300
|
|
|
Total
Cost
|
$1,921,014
|
|
|
|
|
Adj.$/ADM
|
$6,403
|
Prototypes
WYOMING PROTOTYPICAL
MODEL
HIGH SCHOOL: 9-12;
600 STUDENTS; CLASS SIZE 17;
PUPIL/TEACHER RATIO
17
PRELIMINARY COSTS
Description |
Units
|
Salary Cost
|
Mand. Benefits
|
Health Benefits
|
Total Cost
|
A.
Personnel |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Teachers |
41.2
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$1,706,066
|
3.
Substitute Teachers(5%) |
1.7
|
$12,250
|
$937
|
|
$22,418
|
4.
Aides (FTE) |
6
|
$10,080
|
$1,915
|
|
$71,971
|
5.
Pupil Support |
5
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$207,165
|
6.
Library Media |
|
|
|
|
|
Certificated
Librarian |
1
|
$31,758
|
$6,034
|
$3,641
|
$41,433
|
Media
Assistant |
2
|
$18,000
|
$3,420
|
$3,641
|
$50,122
|
Tech.
Asst. |
|
|
|
|
|
7.
School Administration |
1
|
$53,071
|
$10,083
|
$3,641
|
$66,795
|
|
1
|
$47,675
|
$9,058
|
$3,641
|
$60,374
|
8.
Clerical/Data Entry |
5
|
$16,000
|
$3,040
|
$3,641
|
$113,405
|
9.
Operations |
5
|
$20,000
|
$3,800
|
$3,641
|
$137,205
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
B.
Supplies and |
|
|
|
|
$164,765
|
Instructional
Materials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
Equipment |
|
|
|
|
$97,266
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.
Food Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E.
Categorical Aid |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Special Education |
|
|
|
|
$317,738
|
2.
Limited English Speaking
(see spread sheet) |
|
|
|
|
|
3.
Disadvantaged Youth
(see spread sheet) |
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Gifted |
|
|
|
|
$2,700
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.
Student Activities |
|
|
|
|
$100,203
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G.
Professional Development |
|
|
|
|
$58,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.
Assessment |
|
|
|
|
$15,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.
District Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
1.
Maintenance and Operations |
|
|
|
|
$342,600
|
2.
Administration and miscellaneous categories |
|
|
|
|
$331,923
|
3.
Transportation |
|
|
|
|
$160,792
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
600
|
|
|
Total
Cost
|
$4,068,441
|
|
|
|
|
Adj.$/ADM
|
$6,781
|
Wyoming District by
District Impact
COST
BASED BLOCK GRANT MODEL |
2
ADM
95-96
|
3
Revenue per ADM
95-96
|
4
Model Revenue per
ADM
|
5
Revised Model per
ADM
|
6
Small School Adj/ADM
|
7
Small District
Adj/ADM
|
8
EDY
LES
Adj/ADM
|
Albany
#1 (Laramie) |
4,154
|
$5,521
|
$6,418
|
$6,511
|
$226
|
$-
|
$-
|
Big
Horn #1 (Byron) |
794
|
$7,668
|
$6,422
|
$6,598
|
$1,901
|
$-
|
$215
|
Big
Horn #2 (Lovell) |
810
|
$5,821
|
$6,419
|
$6,217
|
$457
|
$-
|
$-
|
Big
Horn #3 (Greybull) |
564
|
$6,563
|
$6,408
|
$6,522
|
$924
|
$-
|
$-
|
Big
Horn #4 (Basin) |
423
|
$7,979
|
$6,488
|
$6,610
|
$2,105
|
$-
|
$-
|
Campbell
#1 (Gillette) |
7,989
|
$6,345
|
$6,415
|
$6,255
|
$162
|
$-
|
$-
|
Carbon
#1 (Rawlins) |
2,198
|
$6,154
|
$6,441
|
$6,331
|
$311
|
$-
|
$-
|
Carbon
#2 (Saratoga) |
1,043
|
$8,831
|
$6,409
|
$6,851
|
$1,975
|
$-
|
$-
|
Converse
#1 (Douglas) |
1,812
|
$5,850
|
$6,422
|
$6,555
|
$175
|
$-
|
$-
|
Converse
#2 (Glenrock) |
886
|
$7,118
|
$6,427
|
$6,526
|
$737
|
$-
|
$-
|
Crook
#1 (Sundance) |
1,299
|
$7,640
|
$6,444
|
$6,646
|
$1,347
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#1 (Lander) |
2,062
|
$5,346
|
$6,420
|
$6,370
|
$63
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#2 (Dubois) |
347
|
$7,182
|
$6,436
|
$6,603
|
$1,900
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#6 (Windriver) |
412
|
$8,145
|
$6,430
|
$7,172
|
$1,637
|
$-
|
$217
|
Fremont
#9 (Jeffrey City) |
38
|
$16,768
|
$6,466
|
$7,647
|
$4,908
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#14 (Ethete) |
761
|
$6,871
|
$6,389
|
$6,710
|
$702
|
$-
|
$420
|
Fremont#21(Ft.Washakie) |
279
|
$10,015
|
$6,243
|
$9,064
|
$474
|
$-
|
$426
|
Fremont
#24 (Shoshoni) |
368
|
$7,966
|
$6,440
|
$6,790
|
$1,337
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#25 (Riverton) |
2,919
|
$5,193
|
$6,446
|
$6,637
|
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#38 (Arapahoe) |
351
|
$7,663
|
$6,245
|
$7,227
|
$456
|
$-
|
$462
|
Goshen
#1 (Torrington) |
2,278
|
$6,251
|
$6,426
|
$6,673
|
$574
|
$-
|
$-
|
Hot
Springs #1 (Thermopolis) |
858
|
$6,907
|
$6,417
|
$6,934
|
$595
|
$-
|
$212
|
Johnson
#1 (Buffalo) |
1,317
|
$6,376
|
$6,434
|
$6,580
|
$652
|
$-
|
$-
|
Laramie
#1 (Cheyenne) |
13,759
|
$5,259
|
$6,406
|
$6,229
|
$61
|
$-
|
$-
|
Laramie
#2 (Pine Bluffs) |
972
|
$7,374
|
$6,420
|
$6,629
|
$1,619
|
$-
|
$-
|
Lincoln
#1 (Kemmerer) |
998
|
$7,180
|
$6,443
|
$6,568
|
$237
|
$-
|
$-
|
Lincoln
#2 (Afton) |
2,738
|
$5,639
|
$6,439
|
$6,439
|
$208
|
$-
|
$-
|
Natrona
#1 (Casper) |
12,713
|
$5,443
|
$6,417
|
$6,331
|
$154
|
$-
|
$-
|
Niobrara
#1 (Lusk) |
507
|
$6,815
|
$6,420
|
$6,777
|
$1,190
|
$-
|
$-
|
Park
#1 (Powell) |
1,932
|
$5,261
|
$6,413
|
$6,288
|
$59
|
$-
|
$-
|
Park
#6 (Cody) |
2,706
|
$4,898
|
$6,418
|
$6,059
|
$56
|
$-
|
$-
|
Park
#16 (Meeteetse) |
167
|
$10,215
|
$6,414
|
$6,907
|
$2,615
|
$-
|
$213
|
Platte
#1 (Wheatland) |
1,464
|
$6,690
|
$6,425
|
$6,549
|
$583
|
$-
|
$-
|
Platte
#2 (Guernsey-Sunrise) |
264
|
$8,449
|
$6,452
|
$6,718
|
$2,036
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sheridan
#1 (Ranchester) |
927
|
$7,079
|
$6,420
|
$6,712
|
$1,257
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sheridan
#2 (Sheridan) |
3,512
|
$5,410
|
$6,437
|
$6,440
|
$42
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sheridan
#3 (Arvada) |
100
|
$13,031
|
$6,434
|
$8,799
|
$4,654
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sublette
#1 (Pinedale) |
653
|
$8,280
|
$6,403
|
$6,590
|
$810
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sublette
#9 (Big Piney) |
668
|
$7,803
|
$6,436
|
$6,816
|
$947
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sweetwater
#1 (Rock Springs) |
5,670
|
$5,749
|
$6,424
|
$6,355
|
$265
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sweetwater
#2 (Green River) |
3,669
|
$5,814
|
$6,428
|
$6,487
|
$88
|
$-
|
$-
|
Teton
#1 (Jackson) |
2,207
|
$7,056
|
$6,393
|
$6,441
|
$310
|
$-
|
$-
|
Uinta
#1 (Evanston) |
3,715
|
$5,661
|
$6,410
|
$6,252
|
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Uinta
#4 (Mt. View) |
952
|
$6,553
|
$6,435
|
$6,598
|
$419
|
$-
|
$-
|
Uinta
#6 (Lyman) |
1,014
|
$6,400
|
$6,451
|
$6,313
|
$305
|
$-
|
$-
|
Washakie
#1 (Worland) |
1,740
|
$5,186
|
$6,430
|
$6,417
|
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Washakie
#2 (Ten Sleep) |
156
|
$9,330
|
$6,413
|
$7,059
|
$2,948
|
$-
|
$-
|
Weston
#1 (Newcastle) |
1,121
|
$5,812
|
$6,427
|
$6,352
|
$299
|
$-
|
$-
|
Weston
#7 (Upton) |
345
|
$7,578
|
$6,436
|
$6,678
|
$1,735
|
$-
|
$-
|
Wyoming
Total
|
98,635
|
$5,964
|
$6,420
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming District
by District Impact
EDUCATION
RESOURCE MODEL |
9
Seniority
Adj/ADM
|
10
Modified
Revenue
ADM
|
11
Regional
C of L
Adj./ADM
|
12
TotalModel
Rev.
With C of L
|
13
Difference
Current
Revenue
|
14
Total
Change in Revenue
|
Albany
#1 (Laramie) |
$39
|
$6,777
|
$100
|
$6,877
|
$1,356
|
$5,410,154
|
Big
Horn #1 (Byron) |
$(128)
|
$8,586
|
$(81)
|
$8,505
|
$837
|
$640,697
|
Big
Horn #2 (Lovell) |
$44
|
$6,718
|
$(64)
|
$6,654
|
$833
|
$651,101
|
Big
Horn #3 (Greybull) |
$46
|
$7,492
|
$(71)
|
$7,421
|
$858
|
$463,608
|
Big
Horn #4 (Basin) |
$(44)
|
$8,670
|
$(82)
|
$8,588
|
$610
|
$250,352
|
Campbell
#1 (Gillette) |
$72
|
$6,489
|
$(73)
|
$6,416
|
$72
|
$551,232
|
Carbon
#1 (Rawlins) |
$183
|
$6,825
|
$180
|
$7,004
|
$851
|
$1,806,707
|
Carbon
#2 (Saratoga) |
$(164)
|
$8,662
|
$228
|
$8,890
|
$58
|
$58,612
|
Converse
#1 (Douglas) |
$(70)
|
$6,659
|
$(93)
|
$6,567
|
$717
|
$1,257,422
|
Converse
#2 (Glenrock) |
$(66)
|
$7,197
|
$(100)
|
$7,097
|
$(21)
|
$(18,287)
|
Crook
#1 (Sundance) |
$(45)
|
$7,948
|
$(105)
|
$7,843
|
$204
|
$255,286
|
Fremont
#1 (Lander) |
$(8)
|
$6,424
|
$(147)
|
$6,277
|
$931
|
$1,860,739
|
Fremont
#2 (Dubois) |
$(209)
|
$8,295
|
$(190)
|
$8,105
|
$923
|
$306,268
|
Fremont
#6 (Windriver) |
$(1)
|
$9,024
|
$(206)
|
$8,818
|
$673
|
$267,487
|
Fremont
#9 (Jeffrey City) |
$(218)
|
$12,336
|
$(282)
|
$12,055
|
$(4,714)
|
$(177,913)
|
Fremont
#14 (Ethete) |
$(212)
|
$7,620
|
$(174)
|
$7,446
|
$575
|
$416,991
|
Fremont#21(Ft.Washakie) |
$(226)
|
$9,738
|
$(223)
|
$9,516
|
$(499)
|
$(129,623)
|
Fremont
#24 (Shoshoni) |
$161
|
$8,288
|
$(189)
|
$8,098
|
$132
|
$46,567
|
Fremont
#25 (Riverton) |
$(30)
|
$6,607
|
$(151)
|
$6,456
|
$1,263
|
$3,565,163
|
Fremont
#38 (Arapahoe) |
$(223)
|
$7,922
|
$(181)
|
$7,741
|
$78
|
$25,821
|
Goshen
#1 (Torrington) |
$(142)
|
$7,104
|
$(64)
|
$7,040
|
$789
|
$1,721,639
|
Hot
Springs #1 (Thermopolis) |
$(48)
|
$7,693
|
$(124)
|
$7,568
|
$661
|
$549,358
|
Johnson
#1 (Buffalo) |
$6
|
$7,239
|
$32
|
$7,271
|
$895
|
$1,138,754
|
Laramie
#1 (Cheyenne) |
$171
|
$6,461
|
$(27)
|
$6,434
|
$1,175
|
$15,556,860
|
Laramie
#2 (Pine Bluffs) |
$(142)
|
$8,116
|
$(34)
|
$8,082
|
$708
|
$669,076
|
Lincoln
#1 (Kemmerer) |
$(110)
|
$6,695
|
$(48)
|
$6,646
|
$(533)
|
$(517,236)
|
Lincoln
#2 (Afton) |
$(66)
|
$6,582
|
$(47)
|
$6,534
|
$896
|
$2,367,394
|
Natrona
#1 (Casper) |
$(39)
|
$6,446
|
$53
|
$6,499
|
$1,056
|
$12,928,644
|
Niobrara
#1 (Lusk) |
$(56)
|
$7,911
|
$(110)
|
$7,801
|
$986
|
$475,921
|
Park
#1 (Powell) |
$(134)
|
$6,213
|
$115
|
$6,328
|
$1,067
|
$1,975,124
|
Park
#6 (Cody) |
$(64)
|
$6,051
|
$112
|
$6,163
|
$1,266
|
$3,307,945
|
Park
#16 (Meeteetse) |
$(213)
|
$9,522
|
$177
|
$9,698
|
$(516)
|
$(83,743)
|
Platte
#1 (Wheatland) |
$(174)
|
$6,958
|
$(63)
|
$6,895
|
$205
|
$288,401
|
Platte
#2 (Guernsey-Sunrise) |
$(132)
|
$8,622
|
$(78)
|
$8,545
|
$96
|
$24,641
|
Sheridan
#1 (Ranchester) |
$(78)
|
$7,891
|
$130
|
$8,021
|
$942
|
$843,957
|
Sheridan
#2 (Sheridan) |
$(5)
|
$6,477
|
$106
|
$6,583
|
$1,173
|
$3,987,152
|
Sheridan
#3 (Arvada) |
$(647)
|
$12,807
|
$211
|
$13,017
|
$(14)
|
$(1,371)
|
Sublette
#1 (Pinedale) |
$(49)
|
$7,351
|
$245
|
$7,596
|
$(684)
|
$(429,739)
|
Sublette
#9 (Big Piney) |
$(112)
|
$7,651
|
$255
|
$7,906
|
$102
|
$66,342
|
Sweetwater
#1 (Rock Springs) |
$(76)
|
$6,544
|
$60
|
$6,604
|
$855
|
$4,700,080
|
Sweetwater
#2 (Green River) |
$14
|
$6,589
|
$61
|
$6,650
|
$836
|
$2,973,925
|
Teton
#1 (Jackson) |
$(2)
|
$6,749
|
$661
|
$7,410
|
$353
|
$748,507
|
Uinta
#1 (Evanston) |
$(18)
|
$6,234
|
$(69)
|
$6,165
|
$504
|
$1,796,312
|
Uinta
#4 (Mt. View) |
$347
|
$7,364
|
$(82)
|
$7,282
|
$729
|
$670,915
|
Uinta
#6 (Lyman) |
$49
|
$6,667
|
$(74)
|
$6,593
|
$193
|
$189,234
|
Washakie
#1 (Worland) |
$8
|
$6,426
|
$(61)
|
$6,365
|
$1,179
|
$1,978,404
|
Washakie
#2 (Ten Sleep) |
$(99)
|
$9,908
|
$(94)
|
$9,814
|
$484
|
$71,726
|
Weston
#1 (Newcastle) |
$(177)
|
$6,475
|
$(98)
|
$6,377
|
$565
|
$614,589
|
Weston
#7 (Upton) |
$35
|
$8,447
|
$(128)
|
$8,320
|
$741
|
$247,139
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
$76,368,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Cost |
$60,763,354
|
Wyoming District
by District Impact
EDUCATION
RESOURCE MODEL |
15
Full
Hold
Harmless
|
16
State Savings
for Gain
Limit
|
17
State Cost
for Loss
15%
|
Albany
#1 (Laramie) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Big
Horn #1 (Byron) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Big
Horn #2 (Lovell) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Big
Horn #3 (Greybull) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Big
Horn #4 (Basin) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Campbell
#1 (Gillette) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Carbon
#1 (Rawlins) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Carbon
#2 (Saratoga) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Converse
#1 (Douglas) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Converse
#2 (Glenrock) |
$(18,287)
|
$-
|
$-
|
Crook
#1 (Sundance) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#1 (Lander) |
$-
|
$258,720
|
$-
|
Fremont
#2 (Dubois) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#6 (Windriver) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#9 (Jeffrey City) |
$(177,913)
|
$-
|
$114,623
|
Fremont
#14 (Ethete) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont#21(Ft.Washakie) |
$(129,623)
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#24 (Shoshoni) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Fremont
#25 (Riverton) |
$-
|
$1,366,327
|
$-
|
Fremont
#38 (Arapahoe) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Goshen
#1 (Torrington) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Hot
Springs #1 (Thermopolis) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Johnson
#1 (Buffalo) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Laramie
#1 (Cheyenne) |
$-
|
$5,115,681
|
$-
|
Laramie
#2 (Pine Bluffs) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Lincoln
#1 (Kemmerer) |
$(517,236)
|
$-
|
$-
|
Lincoln
#2 (Afton) |
$-
|
$131,525
|
$-
|
Natrona
#1 (Casper) |
$-
|
$2,936,361
|
$-
|
Niobrara
#1 (Lusk) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Park
#1 (Powell) |
$-
|
$513,837
|
$-
|
Park
#6 (Cody) |
$-
|
$1,387,923
|
$-
|
Park
#16 (Meeteetse) |
$(83,743)
|
$-
|
$-
|
Platte
#1 (Wheatland) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Platte
#2 (Guernsey-Sunrise) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sheridan
#1 (Ranchester) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sheridan
#2 (Sheridan) |
$-
|
$1,229,391
|
$-
|
Sheridan
#3 (Arvada) |
$(1,371)
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sublette
#1 (Pinedale) |
$(429,739)
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sublette
#9 (Big Piney) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sweetwater
#1 (Rock Springs) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Sweetwater
#2 (Green River) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Teton
#1 (Jackson) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Uinta
#1 (Evanston) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Uinta
#4 (Mt. View) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Uinta
#6 (Lyman) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Washakie
#1 (Worland) |
$-
|
$673,438
|
$-
|
Washakie
#2 (Ten Sleep) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Weston
#1 (Newcastle) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
Weston
#7 (Upton) |
$-
|
$-
|
$-
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming
Total |
$(1,357,912)
|
$15,719,599
|
$114,623
|
Four Alternative
Simulations
In this section, MAP
displays four alternative scenarios, each designed to illustrate a point
related to the distribution of the state's school finance formula:
The first example is
the most stark. It merely reallocates existing state resources. As the
reader can see, there are large numbers of districts that lose substantial
sums of revenue, and several districts that gain significantly. Under this
scenario, which is perfectly equalizing, several districts would suffer
catastrophic losses.
The second example
is at the other end of the continuum. It displays what would happen if
the amount which holds every district harmless were leveled up. Under this
scenario, every district would gain revenue. While this may be seen as
a positive outcome by the schools, it would require increasing the total
expenditures astronomically.
The third example is
the model described in the Appendix. It is shown here so that it may be
compared to the fourth model, which is a lower cost variation of the model
MAP described. The fourth model has been altered in the following manner:
Elementary School
1. Increase class
size by one.
2. Reduce the number
of resource teachers from two to one.
3. Reduce the number
of aides from three to two.
4. Reduce the allocation
for pupil support services from 1.5 to one.
Middle School
1. Increase class
size by one.
2. Reduce the number
of resource teachers from two to one.
3. Decrease pupil support
personnel by one.
4. Decrease aides from
three to two.
High School
1. Increase class
size by two.
2. Decrease pupil support
personnel by one.
3. Decrease aides by
one.
Overall, the cap on allowable
expenditures in any one year was decreased from 15 percent to 10 percent.
These alterations to
the model reduce the first-year state costs from approximately $60 million
to a little over $31 million. The purpose of the example is to show how
relatively modest changes in the model may have large statewide fiscal
impacts.
EXAMPLE
1
REDISTRIBUTION
OF EXISTING RESOURCES EXISTING RESOURCES |
ADM
|
Revenue per ADM
|
Total Model Rev
|
Difference Current
|
State Savings for Gain
|
State Costs for Loss
|
Total Change
|
District |
95-96
|
95-96
|
w/ C of L
|
Revenue
|
Limit (15%)
|
Limit (10%)
|
Revenue
|
Albany
#1 (Laramie) |
4,154
|
$5,521
|
$6,186
|
$666
|
$0
|
$ |
$2,655,957
|
Big
Horn #1 (Byron) |
794
|
$7,668
|
$5,955
|
($1,713)
|
$0
|
$ |
($1,312,117)
|
Big
Horn #2 (Lovell) |
810
|
$5,821
|
$5,751
|
($70)
|
$0
|
$ |
($54,816)
|
Big
Horn #3 (Greybull) |
564
|
$6,563
|
$6,066
|
($497)
|
$0
|
$ |
($268,526)
|
Big
Horn #4 (Basin) |
423
|
$7,979
|
$5,985
|
($1,994)
|
$0
|
$ |
($818,829)
|
Campbell
#1 (Gillette) |
7,989
|
$6,345
|
$5,810
|
($535)
|
$0
|
$ |
($4,116,106)
|
Carbon
#1 (Rawlins) |
2,198
|
$6,154
|
$6,196
|
$43
|
$0
|
$ |
$90,483
|
Carbon
#2 (Saratoga) |
1,043
|
$8,831
|
$6,406
|
($2,426)
|
$0
|
$ |
($2,441,579)
|
Converse
#1 (Douglas) |
1,812
|
$5,850
|
$5,943
|
$93
|
$0
|
$ |
$162,839
|
Converse
#2 (Glenrock) |
886
|
$7,118
|
$5,913
|
($1,205)
|
$0
|
$ |
($1,034,779)
|
Crook
#1 (Sundance) |
1,299
|
$7,640
|
$6,040
|
($1,599)
|
$0
|
$ |
($2,003,645)
|
Fremont
#1 (Lander) |
2,062
|
$5,346
|
$5,770
|
$424
|
$0
|
$ |
$847,468
|
Fremont
#2 (Dubois) |
347
|
$7,182
|
$5,787
|
($1,395)
|
$0
|
$ |
($462,836)
|
Fremont
#6 (Windriver) |
412
|
$8,145
|
$6,551
|
($1,594)
|
$0
|
$ |
($633,774)
|
Fremont
#9 (Jeffrey City) |
38
|
$16,768
|
$6,769
|
($9,999)
|
$0
|
$ |
($377,421)
|
Fremont
#14 (Ethete) |
761
|
$6,871
|
$5,934
|
($937)
|
$0
|
$ |
($680,193)
|
Fremont#21(Ft.Washakie) |
279
|
$10,015
|
$8,363
|
($1,652)
|
$0
|
$ |
($428,914)
|
Fremont
#24 (Shoshoni) |
368
|
$7,966
|
$6,326
|
($1,640)
|
$0
|
$ |
($577,727)
|
Fremont
#25 (Riverton) |
2,919
|
$5,193
|
$5,985
|
$792
|
$36,538
|
$ |
$2,235,373
|
Fremont
#38 (Arapahoe) |
351
|
$7,663
|
$6,569
|
($1,094)
|
$0
|
$ |
($362,948)
|
Goshen
#1 (Torrington) |
2,278
|
$6,251
|
$6,013
|
($238)
|
$0
|
$ |
($520,363)
|
Hot
Springs #1 (Thermopolis) |
858
|
$6,907
|
$6,328
|
($579)
|
$0
|
$ |
($481,149)
|
Johnson
#1 (Buffalo) |
1,317
|
$6,376
|
$6,144
|
($232)
|
$0
|
$ |
($295,321)
|
Laramie
#1 (Cheyenne) |
13,759
|
$5,259
|
$5,933
|
$674
|
$0
|
$ |
$8,921,779
|
Laramie
#2 (Pine Bluffs) |
972
|
$7,374
|
$6,006
|
($1,368)
|
$0
|
$ |
($1,292,867)
|
Lincoln
#1 (Kemmerer) |
998
|
$7,180
|
$5,936
|
($1,244)
|
$0
|
$ |
($1,206,846)
|
Lincoln
#2 (Afton) |
2,738
|
$5,639
|
$5,856
|
$217
|
$0
|
$ |
$574,445
|
Natrona
#1 (Casper) |
12,713
|
$5,443
|
$5,887
|
$444
|
$0
|
$ |
$5,439,518
|
Niobrara
#1 (Lusk) |
507
|
$6,815
|
$6,178
|
($637)
|
$0
|
$ |
($307,433)
|
Park
#1 (Powell) |
1,932
|
$5,261
|
$5,811
|
$549
|
$0
|
$ |
$1,017,268
|
Park
#6 (Cody) |
2,706
|
$4,898
|
$5,644
|
$746
|
$30,274
|
$ |
$1,950,296
|
Park
#16 (Meeteetse) |
167
|
$10,215
|
$6,361
|
($3,854)
|
$0
|
$ |
($625,315)
|
Platte
#1 (Wheatland) |
1,464
|
$6,690
|
$5,860
|
($830)
|
$0
|
$ |
($1,165,182)
|
Platte
#2 (Guernsey-Sunrise) |
264
|
$8,449
|
$6,043
|
($2,406)
|
$0
|
$ |
($618,032)
|
Sheridan
#1 (Ranchester) |
927
|
$7,079
|
$6,280
|
($799)
|
$0
|
$ |
($715,956)
|
Sheridan
#2 (Sheridan) |
3,512
|
$5,410
|
$6,059
|
$649
|
$0
|
$ |
$2,206,723
|
Sheridan
#3 (Arvada) |
100
|
$13,031
|
$7,809
|
($5,222)
|
$0
|
$ |
($501,256)
|
Sublette
#1 (Pinedale) |
653
|
$8,280
|
$6,305
|
($1,974)
|
$0
|
$ |
($1,240,990)
|
Sublette
#9 (Big Piney) |
668
|
$7,803
|
$6,439
|
($1,364)
|
$0
|
$ |
($883,020)
|
Sweetwater
#1 (Rock Springs) |
5,670
|
$5,749
|
$5,873
|
$124
|
$0
|
$ |
$681,562
|
Sweetwater
#2 (Green River) |
3,669
|
$5,814
|
$6,093
|
$278
|
$0
|
$ |
$990,830
|
Teton
#1 (Jackson) |
2,207
|
$7,056
|
$6,599
|
($458)
|
$0
|
$ |
($969,138)
|
Uinta
#1 (Evanston) |
3,715
|
$5,661
|
$5,724
|
$63
|
$0
|
$ |
$223,933
|
Uinta
#4 (Mt. View) |
952
|
$6,553
|
$6,402
|
($152)
|
$0
|
$ |
($139,892)
|
Uinta
#6 (Lyman) |
1,014
|
$6,400
|
$5,810
|
($590)
|
$0
|
$ |
($577,290)
|
Washakie
#1 (Worland) |
1,740
|
$5,186
|
$5,903
|
$718
|
$0
|
$ |
$1,204,267
|
Washakie
#2 (Ten Sleep) |
156
|
$9,330
|
$6,449
|
($2,881)
|
$0
|
$ |
($426,535)
|
Weston
#1 (Newcastle) |
1,121
|
$5,812
|
$5,626
|
($186)
|
$0
|
$ |
($201,714)
|
Weston
#7 (Upton) |
345
|
$7,578
|
$6,146
|
($1,432)
|
$0
|
$ |
($477,574)
|
Wyoming
Total |
98,635
|
$5,964
|
|
|
$66,812
|
|
$982,658
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
State
Cost
|
$915,847
|
EXAMPLE
2 - WYOMING COST
BASED BLOCK GRANT
MODEL LEVEL
UP |
ADM
|
Revenue per ADM
|
Total Model Rev
|
Difference Current
|
State Savings for Gain
|
State Costs for Loss
|
Total Change
|
District |
95-96
|
95-96
|
w/ C of L
|
Revenue
|
Limit (15%)
|
Limit (10%)
|
Revenue
|
Albany
#1 (Laramie) |
4,154
|
$5,521
|
$14,199
|
$8,678
|
$31,319,487
|
$0
|
$34,623,245
|
Big
Horn #1 (Byron) |
794
|
$7,668
|
$14,198
|
$6,530
|
$4,119,329
|
$0
|
$5,000,132
|
Big
Horn #2 (Lovell) |
810
|
$5,821
|
$13,623
|
$7,801
|
$5,413,420
|
$0
|
$6,095,680
|
Big
Horn #3 (Greybull) |
564
|
$6,563
|
$14,019
|
$7,456
|
$3,495,820
|
$0
|
$4,027,621
|
Big
Horn #4 (Basin) |
423
|
$7,979
|
$14,171
|
$6,192
|
$2,051,540
|
$0
|
$2,543,050
|
Campbell
#1 (Gillette) |
7,989
|
$6,345
|
$13,558
|
$7,214
|
$48,193,487
|
$0
|
$55,517,953
|
Carbon
#1 (Rawlins) |
2,198
|
$6,154
|
$14,272
|
$8,118
|
$15,282,159
|
$0
|
$17,242,721
|
Carbon
#2 (Saratoga) |
1,043
|
$8,831
|
$14,971
|
$6,140
|
$4,846,632
|
$0
|
$6,180,082
|
Converse
#1 (Douglas) |
1,812
|
$5,850
|
$13,725
|
$7,875
|
$12,273,975
|
$0
|
$13,813,078
|
Converse
#2 (Glenrock) |
886
|
$7,118
|
$13,819
|
$6,701
|
$4,837,705
|
$0
|
$5,754,699
|
Crook
#1 (Sundance) |
1,299
|
$7,640
|
$14,121
|
$6,482
|
$6,684,398
|
$0
|
$8,119,983
|
Fremont
#1 (Lander) |
2,062
|
$5,346
|
$13,385
|
$8,039
|
$14,459,350
|
$0
|
$16,061,368
|
Fremont
#2 (Dubois) |
347
|
$7,182
|
$13,883
|
$6,701
|
$1,865,807
|
$0
|
$2,223,259
|
Fremont
#6 (Windriver) |
412
|
$8,145
|
$14,810
|
$6,665
|
$2,163,835
|
$0
|
$2,649,540
|
Fremont
#9 (Jeffrey City) |
38
|
$16,768
|
$16,746
|
($22)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($843)
|
Fremont
#14 (Ethete) |
761
|
$6,871
|
$14,135
|
$7,264
|
$4,523,045
|
$0
|
$5,270,988
|
Fremont#21(Ft.Washakie) |
279
|
$10,015
|
$16,408
|
$6,394
|
$1,270,282
|
$0
|
$1,660,403
|
Fremont
#24 (Shoshoni) |
368
|
$7,966
|
$14,248
|
$6,282
|
$1,792,380
|
$0
|
$2,213,418
|
Fremont
#25 (Riverton) |
2,919
|
$5,193
|
$13,598
|
$8,405
|
$21,526,620
|
$0
|
$23,725,456
|
Fremont
#38 (Arapahoe) |
351
|
$7,663
|
$14,649
|
$6,986
|
$1,936,744
|
$0
|
$2,318,193
|
Goshen
#1 (Torrington) |
2,278
|
$6,251
|
$13,846
|
$7,595
|
$14,535,236
|
$0
|
$16,582,521
|
Hot
Springs #1 (Thermopolis) |
858
|
$6,907
|
$14,208
|
$7,301
|
$5,205,881
|
$0
|
$6,066,852
|
Johnson
#1 (Buffalo) |
1,317
|
$6,376
|
$14,133
|
$7,757
|
$8,653,496
|
$0
|
$9,870,563
|
Laramie
#1 (Cheyenne) |
13,759
|
$5,259
|
$13,705
|
$8,446
|
$101,347,029
|
$0
|
$111,788,209
|
Laramie
#2 (Pine Bluffs) |
972
|
$7,374
|
$14,102
|
$6,728
|
$5,310,850
|
$0
|
$6,355,857
|
Lincoln
#1 (Kemmerer) |
998
|
$7,180
|
$13,672
|
$6,492
|
$5,253,342
|
$0
|
$6,298,076
|
Lincoln
#2 (Afton) |
2,738
|
$5,639
|
$13,632
|
$7,994
|
$18,895,417
|
$0
|
$21,131,286
|
Natrona
#1 (Casper) |
12,713
|
$5,443
|
$13,778
|
$8,335
|
$92,023,522
|
$0
|
$102,015,805
|
Niobrara
#1 (Lusk) |
507
|
$6,815
|
$14,269
|
$7,453
|
$3,104,668
|
$0
|
$3,598,172
|
Park
#1 (Powell) |
1,932
|
$5,261
|
$13,771
|
$8,510
|
$14,295,695
|
$0
|
$15,756,982
|
Park
#6 (Cody) |
2,706
|
$4,898
|
$13,601
|
$8,703
|
$20,825,749
|
$0
|
$22,745,772
|
Park
#16 (Meeteetse) |
167
|
$10,215
|
$14,966
|
$4,751
|
$522,307
|
$0
|
$770,901
|
Platte
#1 (Wheatland) |
1,464
|
$6,690
|
$13,786
|
$7,096
|
$8,555,489
|
$0
|
$9,964,715
|
Platte
#2 (Guernsey-Sunrise) |
264
|
$8,449
|
$14,154
|
$5,706
|
$1,140,156
|
$0
|
$1,465,700
|
Sheridan
#1 (Ranchester) |
927
|
$7,079
|
$14,538
|
$7,459
|
$5,731,239
|
$0
|
$6,682,626
|
Sheridan
#2 (Sheridan) |
3,512
|
$5,410
|
$13,995
|
$8,585
|
$26,416,276
|
$0
|
$29,174,038
|
Sheridan
#3 (Arvada) |
100
|
$13,031
|
$17,980
|
$4,949
|
$287,354
|
$0
|
$474,968
|
Sublette
#1 (Pinedale) |
653
|
$8,280
|
$14,587
|
$6,307
|
$3,183,582
|
$0
|
$3,964,190
|
Sublette
#9 (Big Piney) |
668
|
$7,803
|
$14,504
|
$6,700
|
$3,580,022
|
$0
|
$4,337,819
|
Sweetwater
#1 (Rock Springs) |
5,670
|
$5,749
|
$13,782
|
$8,032
|
$39,413,137
|
$0
|
$44,153,461
|
Sweetwater
#2 (Green River) |
3,669
|
$5,814
|
$14,001
|
$8,187
|
$26,031,507
|
$0
|
$29,135,124
|
Teton
#1 (Jackson) |
2,207
|
$7,056
|
$15,232
|
$8,176
|
$15,073,653
|
$0
|
$17,315,250
|
Uinta
#1 (Evanston) |
3,715
|
$5,661
|
$13,429
|
$7,767
|
$24,671,486
|
$0
|
$27,699,784
|
Uinta
#4 (Mt. View) |
952
|
$6,553
|
$14,210
|
$7,657
|
$6,144,575
|
$0
|
$7,049,684
|
Uinta
#6 (Lyman) |
1,014
|
$6,400
|
$13,575
|
$7,175
|
$6,081,126
|
$0
|
$7,020,357
|
Washakie
#1 (Worland) |
1,740
|
$5,186
|
$13,621
|
$8,435
|
$12,846,588
|
$0
|
$14,151,554
|
Washakie
#2 (Ten Sleep) |
156
|
$9,330
|
$15,079
|
$5,749
|
$644,019
|
$0
|
$851,237
|
Weston
#1 (Newcastle) |
1,121
|
$5,812
|
$13,364
|
$7,553
|
$7,263,811
|
$0
|
$8,211,693
|
Weston
#7 (Upton) |
345
|
$7,578
|
$14,154
|
$6,576
|
$1,813,579
|
$0
|
$2,192,630
|
Wyoming
Total |
98,635
|
$5,964
|
|
|
$666,906,806
|
$0
|
$751,865,849
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
State
Cost |
$915,847
|
EXAMPLE
3 - WYOMING COST
BASED BLOCK GRANT
MODEL District |
ADM 95-96
|
Revenue per ADM 95-96
|
Total Model
Rev w/ C of L
|
Difference Current Revenue
|
State Savings for Gain Limit (15%)
|
State Costs for Loss Limit (10%)
|
Total Change Revenue
|
Albany
#1 (Laramie) |
4,154
|
$5,521
|
$6,877
|
$1,356
|
$2,106,397
|
$0
|
$5,410,154
|
Big
Horn #1 (Byron) |
794
|
$7,668
|
$8,505
|
$837
|
$0
|
$0
|
$640,697
|
Big
Horn #2 (Lovell) |
810
|
$5,821
|
$6,654
|
$833
|
$0
|
$0
|
$651,101
|
Big
Horn #3 (Greybull) |
564
|
$6,563
|
$7,421
|
$858
|
$0
|
$0
|
$463,608
|
Big
Horn #4 (Basin) |
423
|
$7,979
|
$8,588
|
$610
|
$0
|
$0
|
$250,352
|
Campbell
#1 (Gillette) |
7,989
|
$6,345
|
$6,416
|
$72
|
$0
|
$0
|
$551,232
|
Carbon
#1 (Rawlins) |
2,198
|
$6,154
|
$7,004
|
$851
|
$0
|
$0
|
$1,806,707
|
Carbon
#2 (Saratoga) |
1,043
|
$8,831
|
$8,890
|
$58
|
$0
|
$0
|
$58,612
|
Converse
#1 (Douglas) |
1,812
|
$5,850
|
$6,567
|
$717
|
$0
|
$0
|
$1,257,422
|
Converse
#2 (Glenrock) |
886
|
$7,118
|
$7,097
|
($21)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($18,287)
|
Crook
#1 (Sundance) |
1,299
|
$7,640
|
$7,843
|
$204
|
$0
|
$0
|
$255,286
|
Fremont
#1 (Lander) |
2,062
|
$5,346
|
$6,277
|
$931
|
$258,720
|
$0
|
$1,860,739
|
Fremont
#2 (Dubois) |
347
|
$7,182
|
$8,105
|
$923
|
$0
|
$0
|
$306,268
|
Fremont
#6 (Windriver) |
412
|
$8,145
|
$8,818
|
$673
|
$0
|
$0
|
$267,487
|
Fremont
#9 (Jeffrey City) |
38
|
$16,768
|
$12,055
|
($4,714)
|
$0
|
$114,623
|
($177,913)
|
Fremont
#14 (Ethete) |
761
|
$6,871
|
$7,446
|
$575
|
$0
|
$0
|
$416,991
|
Fremont#21(Ft.Washakie) |
279
|
$10,015
|
$9,516
|
($499)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($129,623)
|
Fremont
#24 (Shoshoni) |
368
|
$7,966
|
$8,098
|
$132
|
$0
|
$0
|
$46,567
|
Fremont
#25 (Riverton) |
2,919
|
$5,193
|
$6,456
|
$1,263
|
$1,366,327
|
$0
|
$3,565,163
|
Fremont
#38 (Arapahoe) |
351
|
$7,663
|
$7,741
|
$78
|
$0
|
$0
|
$25,821
|
Goshen
#1 (Torrington) |
2,278
|
$6,251
|
$7,040
|
$789
|
$0
|
$0
|
$1,721,639
|
Hot
Springs #1 (Thermopolis) |
858
|
$6,907
|
$7,568
|
$661
|
$0
|
$0
|
$549,358
|
Johnson
#1 (Buffalo) |
1,317
|
$6,376
|
$7,271
|
$895
|
$0
|
$0
|
$1,138,754
|
Laramie
#1 (Cheyenne) |
13,759
|
$5,259
|
$6,434
|
$1,175
|
$5,115,681
|
$0
|
$15,556,860
|
Laramie
#2 (Pine Bluffs) |
972
|
$7,374
|
$8,082
|
$708
|
$0
|
$0
|
$669,076
|
Lincoln
#1 (Kemmerer) |
998
|
$7,180
|
$6,646
|
($533)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($517,236)
|
Lincoln
#2 (Afton) |
2,738
|
$5,639
|
$6,534
|
$896
|
$131,525
|
$0
|
$2,367,394
|
Natrona
#1 (Casper) |
12,713
|
$5,443
|
$6,499
|
$1,056
|
$2,936,361
|
$0
|
$12,928,644
|
Niobrara
#1 (Lusk) |
507
|
$6,815
|
$7,801
|
$986
|
$0
|
$0
|
$475,921
|
Park
#1 (Powell) |
1,932
|
$5,261
|
$6,328
|
$1,067
|
$513,837
|
$0
|
$1,975,124
|
Park
#6 (Cody) |
2,706
|
$4,898
|
$6,163
|
$1,266
|
$1,387,923
|
$0
|
$3,307,945
|
Park
#16 (Meeteetse) |
167
|
$10,215
|
$9,698
|
($516)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($83,743)
|
Platte
#1 (Wheatland) |
1,464
|
$6,690
|
$6,895
|
$205
|
$0
|
$0
|
$288,401
|
Platte
#2 (Guernsey-Sunrise) |
264
|
$8,449
|
$8,545
|
$96
|
$0
|
$0
|
$24,641
|
Sheridan
#1 (Ranchester) |
927
|
$7,079
|
$8,021
|
$942
|
$0
|
$0
|
$843,957
|
Sheridan
#2 (Sheridan) |
3,512
|
$5,410
|
$6,583
|
$1,173
|
$1,229,391
|
$0
|
$3,987,152
|
Sheridan
#3 (Arvada) |
100
|
$13,031
|
$13,017
|
($14)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($1,371)
|
Sublette
#1 (Pinedale) |
653
|
$8,280
|
$7,596
|
($684)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($429,739)
|
Sublette
#9 (Big Piney) |
668
|
$7,803
|
$7,906
|
$102
|
$0
|
$0
|
$66,342
|
Sweetwater
#1 (Rock Springs) |
5,670
|
$5,749
|
$6,604
|
$855
|
$0
|
$0
|
$4,700,080
|
Sweetwater
#2 (Green River) |
3,669
|
$5,814
|
$6,650
|
$836
|
$0
|
$0
|
$2,973,925
|
Teton
#1 (Jackson) |
2,207
|
$7,056
|
$7,410
|
$353
|
$0
|
$0
|
$748,507
|
Uinta
#1 (Evanston) |
3,715
|
$5,661
|
$6,165
|
$504
|
$0
|
$0
|
$1,796,312
|
Uinta
#4 (Mt. View) |
952
|
$6,553
|
$7,282
|
$729
|
$0
|
$0
|
$670,915
|
Uinta
#6 (Lyman) |
1,014
|
$6,400
|
$6,593
|
$193
|
$0
|
$0
|
$189,234
|
Washakie
#1 (Worland) |
1,740
|
$5,186
|
$6,365
|
$1,179
|
$673,438
|
$0
|
$1,978,404
|
Washakie
#2 (Ten Sleep) |
156
|
$9,330
|
$9,814
|
$484
|
$0
|
$0
|
$71,726
|
Weston
#1 (Newcastle) |
1,121
|
$5,812
|
$6,377
|
$565
|
$0
|
$0
|
$614,589
|
Weston
#7 (Upton) |
345
|
$7,578
|
$8,320
|
$741
|
$0
|
$0
|
$247,139
|
Wyoming
Total |
98,635
|
$5,964
|
|
|
$15,719,599
|
$114,623
|
$76,368,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
State
Cost |
$60,763,354
|
EXAMPLE
4 - WYOMING COST
BASED BLOCK GRANT
MODEL (MODIFIED) District |
ADM 95-96
|
Revenue per ADM 95-96
|
Total Model Rev w/ C of L
|
Difference Current Revenue
|
State Savings for Gain Limit (10%)
|
State Costs for Loss Limit (10%)
|
Total Change Revenue
|
Albany
#1 (Laramie) |
4,154
|
$5,521
|
$6,480
|
$960
|
$1,627,529
|
$0
|
$3,830,034
|
Big
Horn #1 (Byron) |
794
|
$7,668
|
$8,353
|
$685
|
$0
|
$0
|
$524,685
|
Big
Horn #2 (Lovell) |
810
|
$5,821
|
$6,302
|
$481
|
$0
|
$0
|
$375,516
|
Big
Horn #3 (Greybull) |
564
|
$6,563
|
$7,131
|
$568
|
$0
|
$0
|
$306,665
|
Big
Horn #4 (Basin) |
423
|
$7,979
|
$8,447
|
$469
|
$0
|
$0
|
$192,501
|
Campbell
#1 (Gillette) |
7,989
|
$6,345
|
$6,030
|
($315)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($2,421,244)
|
Carbon
#1 (Rawlins) |
2,198
|
$6,154
|
$6,623
|
$469
|
$0
|
$0
|
$997,060
|
Carbon
#2 (Saratoga) |
1,043
|
$8,831
|
$8,707
|
($125)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($125,478)
|
Converse
#1 (Douglas) |
1,812
|
$5,850
|
$6,174
|
$324
|
$0
|
$0
|
$569,067
|
Converse
#2 (Glenrock) |
886
|
$7,118
|
$6,776
|
($342)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($293,533)
|
Crook
#1 (Sundance) |
1,299
|
$7,640
|
$7,597
|
($43)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($53,708)
|
Fremont
#1 (Lander) |
2,062
|
$5,346
|
$5,886
|
$540
|
$10,660
|
$0
|
$1,078,672
|
Fremont
#2 (Dubois) |
347
|
$7,182
|
$7,930
|
$748
|
$10,000
|
$0
|
$248,301
|
Fremont
#6 (Windriver) |
412
|
$8,145
|
$8,611
|
$466
|
$0
|
$0
|
$185,296
|
Fremont
#9 (Jeffrey City) |
38
|
$16,768
|
$12,046
|
($4,722)
|
$0
|
$114,320
|
($178,224)
|
Fremont
#14 (Ethete) |
761
|
$6,871
|
$7,130
|
$259
|
$0
|
$0
|
$187,916
|
Fremont#21(Ft.Washakie) |
279
|
$10,015
|
$9,176
|
($839)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($217,839)
|
Fremont
#24 (Shoshoni) |
368
|
$7,966
|
$7,864
|
($102)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($35,962)
|
Fremont
#25 (Riverton) |
2,919
|
$5,193
|
$6,056
|
$863
|
$971,400
|
$0
|
$2,437,290
|
Fremont
#38 (Arapahoe) |
351
|
$7,663
|
$7,398
|
($265)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($87,819)
|
Goshen
#1 (Torrington) |
2,278
|
$6,251
|
$6,709
|
$458
|
$0
|
$0
|
$999,501
|
Hot
Springs #1 (Thermopolis) |
858
|
$6,907
|
$7,238
|
$331
|
$0
|
$0
|
$275,211
|
Johnson
#1 (Buffalo) |
1,317
|
$6,376
|
$6,940
|
$563
|
$0
|
$0
|
$717,059
|
Laramie
#1 (Cheyenne) |
13,759
|
$5,259
|
$6,034
|
$775
|
$3,298,806
|
$0
|
$10,259,592
|
Laramie
#2 (Pine Bluffs) |
972
|
$7,374
|
$7,885
|
$511
|
$0
|
$0
|
$483,005
|
Lincoln
#1 (Kemmerer) |
998
|
$7,180
|
$6,269
|
($911)
|
$0
|
$166,839
|
($883,328)
|
Lincoln
#2 (Afton) |
2,738
|
$5,639
|
$6,155
|
$517
|
$0
|
$0
|
$1,366,363
|
Natrona
#1 (Casper) |
12,713
|
$5,443
|
$6,105
|
$663
|
$1,449,386
|
$0
|
$8,110,908
|
Niobrara
#1 (Lusk) |
507
|
$6,815
|
$7,525
|
$710
|
$13,530
|
$0
|
$342,533
|
Park
#1 (Powell) |
1,932
|
$5,261
|
$5,916
|
$655
|
$238,217
|
$0
|
$1,212,409
|
Park
#6 (Cody) |
2,706
|
$4,898
|
$5,752
|
$854
|
$951,868
|
$0
|
$2,231,883
|
Park
#16 (Meeteetse) |
167
|
$10,215
|
$9,635
|
($580)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($94,097)
|
Platte
#1 (Wheatland) |
1,464
|
$6,690
|
$6,550
|
($140)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($196,998)
|
Platte
#2 (Guernsey-Sunrise) |
264
|
$8,449
|
$8,406
|
($43)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($11,071)
|
Sheridan
#1 (Ranchester) |
927
|
$7,079
|
$7,760
|
$681
|
$0
|
$0
|
$610,335
|
Sheridan
#2 (Sheridan) |
3,512
|
$5,410
|
$6,172
|
$762
|
$749,421
|
$0
|
$2,587,928
|
Sheridan
#3 (Arvada) |
100
|
$13,031
|
$12,999
|
($32)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($3,114)
|
Sublette
#1 (Pinedale) |
653
|
$8,280
|
$7,275
|
($1,004)
|
$0
|
$90,777
|
($631,273)
|
Sublette
#9 (Big Piney) |
668
|
$7,803
|
$7,610
|
($193)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($124,947)
|
Sweetwater
#1 (Rock Springs) |
5,670
|
$5,749
|
$6,226
|
$477
|
$0
|
$0
|
$2,622,400
|
Sweetwater
#2 (Green River) |
3,669
|
$5,814
|
$6,243
|
$429
|
$0
|
$0
|
$1,526,031
|
Teton
#1 (Jackson) |
2,207
|
$7,056
|
$7,000
|
($56)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($119,064)
|
Uinta
#1 (Evanston) |
3,715
|
$5,661
|
$5,759
|
$98
|
$0
|
$0
|
$348,416
|
Uinta
#4 (Mt. View) |
952
|
$6,553
|
$6,929
|
$376
|
$0
|
$0
|
$346,089
|
Uinta
#6 (Lyman) |
1,014
|
$6,400
|
$6,228
|
($171)
|
$0
|
$0
|
($167,686)
|
Washakie
#1 (Worland) |
1,740
|
$5,186
|
$5,960
|
$775
|
$429,462
|
$0
|
$1,299,440
|
Washakie
#2 (Ten Sleep) |
156
|
$9,330
|
$9,732
|
$402
|
$0
|
$0
|
$59,526
|
Weston
#1 (Newcastle) |
1,121
|
$5,812
|
$6,011
|
$199
|
$0
|
$0
|
$216,554
|
Weston
#7 (Upton) |
345
|
$7,578
|
$8,142
|
$563
|
$0
|
$0
|
$187,781
|
Wyoming
Total |
98,635
|
$5,964
|
|
|
$9,750,279
|
$371,937
|
$41,090,581
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
State
Cost |
$31,712,239
|
END NOTES
1It is important
to note that many expenditures are automatically linked to other expenditures.
If, for example, the state chose to increase teacher salaries, the total
cost to the district would automatically increase beyond the amount of
the increase in salaries because mandated benefits would increase as well.
Looking at the total compensation package is important to understandiong
the full effect of raising fewer salaries.
2This same
increase is also provide for other employees.
3 Districts
pay only the social security benefits for substitutes.
4Reimbursable
expenditures for special education are reported in Wyoming Department of
Education form 401. The total reimbursable costs consist of two types:
direct-those included in budget categories 1210, 1220 and 1230; and indirect,
which occur elsewhere in the budget (e.g. percent of counselor, administrator,
etc.). The prototypical model includes only the direct charges, but districts
are later reimbursed the full amount. Displaying it in this manner avoids
double-counting special education expenditures.
5Student
activities transportation is another important consideration. For the purposes
of this model, see the section below on transportation.
6To take
a simple example: if the small school adjustment was $178,493 for an elementary
school with an ADM of 11-20 with two teachers, and the regular program
generated $6,165 per pupil in a school of 15 ADM: the school would receive
$92,475 (15 * $6,165) pursuant to the regular formula. The remainder ($86,018)
would be generated by the small school formula.
7For a middle
school with two teachers and 15 pupils and a formula which generated $6,403
per pupil, the adjustment would work in the following manner: the regular
program would generate 15 * $6,403 or $96,045. The single small school
formula would generate $178,493, but instead of deducting from the model
the middle school rate, the formula deducts at the elementary rate of $6,165
per student. This school would therefor be eligible for $86,018.