Legislative Update February 5, 2015
Governor’s Budget Analysis and Comments for Members
February 5, 2015
Members:
As promised earlier this week, below you will find more details on the specific provisions of the Governor’s budget that could impact your schools. It’s extremely important to us that our member schools have up-to-date information and understand how proposals might look in practice for their schools.
Overall, our major takeaway from the proposed budget is obviously disappointment with the funding level of independent charter schools over the next two years. However, public schools and the voucher program are actually expected to see significant funding decreases over the next two years based on the proposal as it stands right now. So we’re starting off in a better place than other publicly-funded students, as the Governor specifically recommended retaining the $8,075 per-pupil allotment for 2R charters.
We know that we have a lot of work ahead of us to make progress on our priority of increased per pupil funding. Proponents of the voucher program and district schools will also be prioritizing this in their efforts, and it’s important to remember that this budget proposal is really the beginning step in what will likely be a several-month long process with adjustments and probably some big changes along the way. We’re committed to keeping you updated as things progress, but the major current proposals are each discussed below.
Charter Funding
Again, the Governor’s budget proposes keeping 2R funding flat while making some cuts to district schools and the voucher program (see above link for more on the uncertainty around how voucher funding will work). In addition to our meetings this week (and continuing next week) with the joint finance committee, we also had the opportunity to meet with DPI and gather some informal feedback on our “open enrollment”-type funding option to make 2R funding more sustainable without drawing down from the common school aid fund. We’re requesting some estimates soon from the legislative fiscal bureau to see the total impact such a proposal might have on MPS if we were to suggest 95% funding rate of the state average revenue limit (which is around $10,000). This option could be on the table if the legislature wants to see an increase for most school districts, since it would restore millions in common aid.
The district school cuts will likely be a big priority for many legislators as the budget moves forward, and we are currently tied to positive increases in revenue limits and certain categorical aids, so we could also benefit from an overall increase to districts. Any change in school funding for the budget probably hinges quite a bit on revenue re-adjustments that will come out in the spring. I would anticipate tax relief and school funding to be the top priorities if there are any positive re-adjustments.
Transportation
The budget proposes reimbursing 2R charter schools for transportation costs, as it does for district schools. The average reimbursement cost for a 2R student would probably be between $40-$50 per student, but it varies based on distance traveled. Here are the reimbursement rates last year:
Distance traveled (one way)/Rate per pupil
0-2 miles/$15
2-5 miles/$35
5-8 miles/$55
8-12 miles/$110
More than 12 miles/$275
Source: DPI 2015-2017 Biennial Budget Request
The Governor’s budget also requests increasing the maximum rate from $275 to $300. This request does not specifically address non-instrumentality transportation, because those schools are technically already included under MPS as the LEA receiving those funds. We recognize, however, that non-instrumentalities are NOT seeing those reimbursements from the district. Our hope would be that if 2Rs received this funding, MPS would be more likely to include that reimbursement in contracts with non-instrumentalities.
Changes to Report Card
The proposed budget weights the statewide report card scores to account for poverty rates and length of time within the school. With the limited information we have on this structure, this seems like it would be favorable for independent charters who have shown above-average growth and outpaced the city in terms of reading and math achievement without any weight placed on demographic controls. The report card would also move from its current rating system of “expectations” to an A through F scoring system. We can expect a lot more discussion around these proposals as it related to the statewide school accountability bill as well.
Assessments
Common core standards would be eliminated under the proposal, and each district would decide on its own standards. It also eliminates the Smarter Balance Assessment, and replaces it with a new yet-to-be-developed state test OR districts may choose their own assessment that has been approved by the Value-Add Research Center at UW-Madison, and has been adjusted for equivalency with other approved tests. Right now it’s not clear that non-instrumentalities would have the authority to choose their own exam, but we will make this a priority of ours in any discussions regarding the ability to choose assessments.
The ideal scenario is still that all publicly-funded students would take the same test that reflects the standards you are teaching to your students. Barring that, however, we need to ensure that our schools have the same opportunities and freedom afforded to districts. There also still remains some question about the ability to do this based on federal regulations, which require a state test.
New Teaching License
Under the proposal, DPI would create a new alternative teaching license that would be a 3-year renewable license good for students in grades 6-12. We were able to successfully champion a similar license for charter school teachers in the last budget, and this license will likely provide similar flexibility to district schools.
Charter School Expansion
A board would be created under the proposal with 11 appointed members by the Governor, legislature, and state superintendent. This board would then approve applications from non-profit entities to become authorizers of charter schools. There are some limits on the students that can directly attend these schools (otherwise they need permission from their “home” district).
As always, our focus remains on our independent charter schools in Milwaukee and Racine and ensuring that you have the resources and policies in place you need to succeed. The creation of this new board will be a controversial provision and I would expect a lot of headlines to be devoted to this. For our part, we’re keeping our focus on our stated priorities and making it clear that funding is the greatest barrier to increasing the number of quality seats.
In the past, the creation of a new governmental entity that would oversee charter expansion has been unpopular in the legislature, and that would be a major hurdle in the way for any expansion of charter schools in other parts of the state.
Other Priorities
Priorities that were not addressed in the budget proposal but that we’ll continue to push for include:
- Removal of the cap on 21st Century Prep charter school in Racine
- Additional categorical aid eligibility for charter schools, including library books, summer school, and K3 funding
- Fair and transparent accountability measures
Thank you for your attention to this information and as always please reach out with questions.
Sean Roberts
Executive Director
414-763-1261
sean@milwaukeecharteradvocates.org
Governor’s Budget Analysis and Comments for Members
February 5, 2015
Members:
As promised earlier this week, below you will find more details on the specific provisions of the Governor’s budget that could impact your schools. It’s extremely important to us that our member schools have up-to-date information and understand how proposals might look in practice for their schools.
Overall, our major takeaway from the proposed budget is obviously disappointment with the funding level of independent charter schools over the next two years. However, public schools and the voucher program are actually expected to see significant funding decreases over the next two years based on the proposal as it stands right now. So we’re starting off in a better place than other publicly-funded students, as the Governor specifically recommended retaining the $8,075 per-pupil allotment for 2R charters.
We know that we have a lot of work ahead of us to make progress on our priority of increased per pupil funding. Proponents of the voucher program and district schools will also be prioritizing this in their efforts, and it’s important to remember that this budget proposal is really the beginning step in what will likely be a several-month long process with adjustments and probably some big changes along the way. We’re committed to keeping you updated as things progress, but the major current proposals are each discussed below.
Charter Funding
Again, the Governor’s budget proposes keeping 2R funding flat while making some cuts to district schools and the voucher program (see above link for more on the uncertainty around how voucher funding will work). In addition to our meetings this week (and continuing next week) with the joint finance committee, we also had the opportunity to meet with DPI and gather some informal feedback on our “open enrollment”-type funding option to make 2R funding more sustainable without drawing down from the common school aid fund. We’re requesting some estimates soon from the legislative fiscal bureau to see the total impact such a proposal might have on MPS if we were to suggest 95% funding rate of the state average revenue limit (which is around $10,000). This option could be on the table if the legislature wants to see an increase for most school districts, since it would restore millions in common aid.
The district school cuts will likely be a big priority for many legislators as the budget moves forward, and we are currently tied to positive increases in revenue limits and certain categorical aids, so we could also benefit from an overall increase to districts. Any change in school funding for the budget probably hinges quite a bit on revenue re-adjustments that will come out in the spring. I would anticipate tax relief and school funding to be the top priorities if there are any positive re-adjustments.
Transportation
The budget proposes reimbursing 2R charter schools for transportation costs, as it does for district schools. The average reimbursement cost for a 2R student would probably be between $40-$50 per student, but it varies based on distance traveled. Here are the reimbursement rates last year:
Distance traveled (one way)/Rate per pupil
0-2 miles/$15
2-5 miles/$35
5-8 miles/$55
8-12 miles/$110
More than 12 miles/$275
Source: DPI 2015-2017 Biennial Budget Request
The Governor’s budget also requests increasing the maximum rate from $275 to $300. This request does not specifically address non-instrumentality transportation, because those schools are technically already included under MPS as the LEA receiving those funds. We recognize, however, that non-instrumentalities are NOT seeing those reimbursements from the district. Our hope would be that if 2Rs received this funding, MPS would be more likely to include that reimbursement in contracts with non-instrumentalities.
Changes to Report Card
The proposed budget weights the statewide report card scores to account for poverty rates and length of time within the school. With the limited information we have on this structure, this seems like it would be favorable for independent charters who have shown above-average growth and outpaced the city in terms of reading and math achievement without any weight placed on demographic controls. The report card would also move from its current rating system of “expectations” to an A through F scoring system. We can expect a lot more discussion around these proposals as it related to the statewide school accountability bill as well.
Assessments
Common core standards would be eliminated under the proposal, and each district would decide on its own standards. It also eliminates the Smarter Balance Assessment, and replaces it with a new yet-to-be-developed state test OR districts may choose their own assessment that has been approved by the Value-Add Research Center at UW-Madison, and has been adjusted for equivalency with other approved tests. Right now it’s not clear that non-instrumentalities would have the authority to choose their own exam, but we will make this a priority of ours in any discussions regarding the ability to choose assessments.
The ideal scenario is still that all publicly-funded students would take the same test that reflects the standards you are teaching to your students. Barring that, however, we need to ensure that our schools have the same opportunities and freedom afforded to districts. There also still remains some question about the ability to do this based on federal regulations, which require a state test.
New Teaching License
Under the proposal, DPI would create a new alternative teaching license that would be a 3-year renewable license good for students in grades 6-12. We were able to successfully champion a similar license for charter school teachers in the last budget, and this license will likely provide similar flexibility to district schools.
Charter School Expansion
A board would be created under the proposal with 11 appointed members by the Governor, legislature, and state superintendent. This board would then approve applications from non-profit entities to become authorizers of charter schools. There are some limits on the students that can directly attend these schools (otherwise they need permission from their “home” district).
As always, our focus remains on our independent charter schools in Milwaukee and Racine and ensuring that you have the resources and policies in place you need to succeed. The creation of this new board will be a controversial provision and I would expect a lot of headlines to be devoted to this. For our part, we’re keeping our focus on our stated priorities and making it clear that funding is the greatest barrier to increasing the number of quality seats.
In the past, the creation of a new governmental entity that would oversee charter expansion has been unpopular in the legislature, and that would be a major hurdle in the way for any expansion of charter schools in other parts of the state.
Other Priorities
Priorities that were not addressed in the budget proposal but that we’ll continue to push for include:
- Removal of the cap on 21st Century Prep charter school in Racine
- Additional categorical aid eligibility for charter schools, including library books, summer school, and K3 funding
- Fair and transparent accountability measures
Thank you for your attention to this information and as always please reach out with questions.
Sean Roberts
Executive Director
414-763-1261
sean@milwaukeecharteradvocates.org