Accountability Pillar

1
Accountability Pillar

• The FFRC outlined the implementation of the
  Accountability Pillar in three major phases
• Baseline data established.
• Target outcomes levels established.
• Results measured.
• The FFRC outlined accountability for improvement
  by stating
• If targets are not met, school jurisdictions are
  expected to address issues.
• If targets continue not to be met, a
  collaborative approach between Alberta Learning
  and jurisdictions will be taken.

2
Development and Implementation of the
Accountability Pillar

• 2003-04
• Preparation/development in consultation with
  stakeholders.
• Implement jurisdiction surveys.
• Consult with stakeholders regarding process for
  working with priority jurisdictions.
• 2004-05
• Report in AERRs based on available data.
• Consult with jurisdictions on integration of
  survey results into planning and reporting
  processes.
• Consult with stakeholders on evaluation
  methodology and provincial long-term target
  setting.
• 2005-06
• Jurisdictions apply evaluation methodology in
  AERRs.
• Work with priority jurisdictions.

3
Survey Process

• Surveys conducted of students in grades 4-7-10,
  parents of students in grades 4-7-10, teachers of
  students in grades 4-7-10, and school board
  members.
• Survey delivery
• Students in-class survey conducted by
  jurisdictions.
• Teachers in-school survey conducted by
  jurisdictions.
• Parents mail-out survey conducted by Alberta
  Learning.
• School board members telephone survey conducted
  by Alberta Learning.
• Consistent sampling design, procedures, survey
  instruments, timing and data analysis.
  Stakeholders provide advice and feedback on this
  work.

4
Survey Process (contd)

• Alberta Learning and jurisdictions responsible
  for survey administration to target populations.
• Alberta Learning works with Accountability Pillar
  Design Implementation Advisory Sub-committee
  (APDIASC) to establish the details and support
  information required.
• Alberta Learning uses existing test distribution,
  collection, scanning and data entry processes in
  place to handle the surveys.
• Year one
• Stand alone survey.
• If timing and methodology coincide, the
  provincial survey could be attached to
  jurisdiction surveys for the target populations.

5
Survey Timelines

• November 2003 Jurisdictions contacted to find
  out current survey practices, jurisdiction
  contact for surveys, and other information.
• December 2003 Letter to jurisdictions outlining
  the survey purpose, process, key dates and
  contact information.
• January 2004 Alberta Learning works with a
  sample of jurisdictions to pilot survey
  questions.
• January 2004 Regional meetings to present
  Renewed Funding Framework, including survey
  process, to jurisdictions.
• January 2004 Surveys distributed to
  jurisdictions.
• February-March 2004 Survey administration.
• April 2004 Completed surveys returned to
  Alberta Learning.
• May 2004 Jurisdiction and school results sent
  to jurisdictions.
• June-October 2004 Gather feedback from
  jurisdictions and key stakeholders.

6
Measuring Success

• Ongoing evaluation and refinement
• Feedback from jurisdictions will be collected on
  a regular basis to assess if adjustments are
  required.
• Preliminary evaluation of the Accountability
  Pillar is expected in 2005-06.

7
Base Funding ( K-12 )

• Base Instruction
• Description
• Funding is provided for every FTE student (ECS _at_
  0.5).
• Home education students 0.25
• Comments
• Outreach funding 51,000
• Monitoring assessment
• Base Instruction Funding
• ( of ECS funded children X 2,408) ( gr.
  1-9 funded X 4,815)
• ( of CEUs X 137.57)

8
Differential Cost Funding

• Funding will be provided to school boards based
  on the number of
• Students with severe disabilities
• ESL / Francisation
• Aboriginal students
• of student population with low SES
• ECS children with mild moderate disabilities
• Funding for these student types comes out of a
  pool.
• Weighting factor and learning grant.

9
Severe Disabilities

• Description
• An allocation will be provided for students
  identified as having severe special needs.
• Student numbers from current severe disabilities
  profiles.
• Comments
• Both the behavioural and non-behavioural
  categories will receive an equivalent amount of
  funding.
• Severe Disabilities Funding
• Profiled Students X 8.726 X 1,604 14,000

10
English as a Second Language/Francisation

• Description
• An allocation will be provided for students
  learning English as a Second Language or
  Francisation.
• Comments
• ECS children are now eligible at 0.5
• ESL / Francisation Funding
• Identified Eligible Students X 0.623 X 1,604
  1,000

11
Aboriginal

• Description
• An allocation will be provided for culturally
  appropriate programming for funded Aboriginal
  students.
• Comments
• Eligible students determined by declaration
  question on student registration forms
• If you wish to declare that you are an Aboriginal
  person, please specify
• Status Indian/First Nations
• Non-Status Indian/First Nations
• Métis
• Inuit
• Aboriginal Funding
• Identified Eligible Students X 0.623 X 1,604
  1,000

12
Socio-Economic Status (SES)

• Description
• An allocation will be provided based on a
  percentage of total FTE students experiencing a
  low socio-economic status
• Comments
• Individual students will not be identified or
  coded as SES.
• Index is based on measures of the percent of low
  income families, average years of education of
  mothers, percent of families living below the low
  income cut off and and index of student mobility.
• SES Funding
• Incidence X Funded Student Population X 0.249
  X 1,604 400

13
ECS Mild Moderate Disabilities

• Description
• An allocation will be provided for children
  eligible for mild/moderate ECS funding.
• Comments
• Includes Gifted and Talented children.
• ECS Mild Moderate Funding
• Identified Eligible Children X 1.316 X 1,604
  2,111

14
Differential Cost Funding

• Formula Based Allocations
• Small Schools by Necessity
• Intra-Jurisdiction Distance
• Enrolment Growth/ Decline
• Jurisdiction Enrolment Complexity
• Northern Allowance
• Relative Cost of Purchasing Adjustment

15
Small Schools By Necessity

• Base Funding
• If school enrolment 150
• Base Funding 75,000
• If school enrolment is between 151 and 225
• Base Funding 75,000 - 986.64 X (School
  Enrolment 150)

16
Small Schools By Necessity.

• New Formula
• Variable Funding
• Grade Configuration and School Rates
• K 3 schools with enrolment lt 80 500
• K 6 schools with enrolment lt 150 1400
• K 9 schools with enrolment lt 220 1600
• K 12 schools with enrolment lt 290 2500

17
Small Schools By Necessity.

• Variable Funding
• Increases to peak level
• Declines to small school limit
• Small Schools by Necessity Funding
• (Base Funding Variable Funding) X small
  schools that are necessary

18
Small Schools By Necessity.

Enrolment
19
Intra-Jurisdiction Distance

• Description
• The calculation of intra-jurisdiction distance
  will be similar to the current formula with the
  following exceptions
• Distance used will be the lesser of the distance
  between the largest population centre or the
  geographic centre of a jurisdiction and each
  school (minus 25 Km)
• ECS children are eligible to receive funding at
  0.5 FTE.
• Intra-Jurisdiction Funding
• (Distance 25km) X Funded Students X 1

20
Enrolment Growth Jurisdiction Level

• Description
• Provided on a per student basis to jurisdictions
  experiencing enrolment increases in K-12 of more
  than 4 from year-to-year
• Comments
• This funding will be one time in nature.
• Jurisdiction Enrolment Growth Funding
• ( growth current year over last year - 4)
  X Funded Students X 541

21
Enrolment Growth School Level

• Description
• Provided on a per student basis to jurisdictions
  with individual schools experiencing enrolment
  increases in K-12 of more than 8 from
  year-to-year.
• Comments
• This funding will be one time in nature.
• School Enrolment Growth Funding
• ( growth current year over last year - 8)
  X Funded Students X 541

22
Enrolment Decline Jurisdiction Level

• Description
• Provided on a per student basis to jurisdictions
  experiencing enrolment decreases in K-12 of more
  than -1.5 from year-to-year.
• Comments
• This funding will be one-time in nature.
• Jurisdiction Enrolment Decline Funding
• ( decline current year over last year 1.5)
  X Funded Students X 3,611 

23
Enrolment Decline School Level

• Description
• Provided on a per student basis to jurisdictions
  with individual schools experiencing natural
  enrolment decreases in K-12 of more than -4 from
  year-to-year.
• Comments
• No funding will be provided to schools whose
  enrolment decline is attributed to a new school
  or program expansions taking place within the
  jurisdiction.
• This funding will be one-time in nature.
• School Enrolment Decline Funding
• ( decline current year over last year 4) X
  Funded Students X 541 

24
Jurisdiction Enrolment / Complexity

• Jurisdiction Enrolment Funding (Flat rate)
• 55,000 provided to charter schools with
  enrolment lt 150
• OR
• 400,000 Provided to school boards with enrolment
  lt 750
• Complexity Funding (for metro boards only)
• 6 X Funded Students

25
Northern Allowance

• Description
• Lower Zone Schools between the 55th and 56th
  parallel.
• Intermediate Zone Schools between the 56th and
  57th parallel.
• Upper Zone Schools north of the 57th parallel.
• Northern Allowance Funding
• (Lower Zone Funded Students X 400)
• (Intermediate Zone Funded Student X 600)
• (Upper Zone Funded Student X 900)

26
Relative Cost of Purchasing Goods and Services
Adjustment (RCPA)

• Description
• A percentage adjustment factor, based on a
  spatial price index, will be applied to 20 of
  funding provided under the new profile, excluding
  all provincial priority funding.
• The index used will have a minimum value of 1.0
  for all boards.
• RCPA Funding
• 20 X Jurisdictions Funding (excl. Provincial
  Priorities) X Adjustment Factor

27
Transportation and PUF

• Description
• Transportation and Program Unit Funding will
  continue to be calculated in the same manner as
  they were in the 2003-2004 school year, as
  described in 2003-2004 Funding Manual for School
  Authorities.

28
LRC, Regional Services Institutional Funding

• Description
• Learning Resources Credit, Regional Education
  Consulting Services and Institutional Support
  funding will continue to be calculated in the
  same manner as they were in the 2003-2004 school
  year, as described in 2003-2004 Funding Manual
  for School Authorities.

29
Transition

• Transition funding will be provided as a separate
  allocation
• Funding will continue in future years
• Will not be eligible for grant rate increases
• Will be reduced if enrolment falls
• Will not increase if enrolment rises

30
Recent Funding Announcement

• Effective September 1, 2003
• Unfunded Cost Pressures (non-certificated
  inflation)
• 37 per student, 18.50 per ECS child
• Severe Disabilities
• Emotional/Behaviour rate increased by 1,673
• Complex health needs
• Student Health Initiative

31
Recent Funding Announcement

• CEU Funding
• Term 1 3 grade 10 students funded on a partial
  full-time basis, plus 290 per student
• Term 2 4 students funded on a CEU basis
• Enrolment Decline
• Funding for jurisdictions with decline in excess
  of 1.5
• Funding for schools with decline in excess of
  4.0