Overview of Picus and Associates Review of Maine

1
Overview of Picus and Associates Review of
Maines K-12School Funding Formula

• Presentation to
• Blue Ribbon Education Commission
• By David L. Silvernail
• October 2016

2
Phases of Review Process

1. Resolve 2011, Chapter 166 authorizes independent
   review of Maine Essential Programs and Services
   (EPS) Funding Formula.
2. Contract Awarded to Picus and Associates.
3. Picus et al issues Interim Report (April 2013)
   and Final Report (December 2013).
4. Education Committee of Legislature creates
   commission to review Picus reports and conduct
   additional analyses. A final report of commission
   is issued in January 2015.

3
Major Components of Picus Review

1. Equity analysis
2. Adequacy of EPS
3. Teacher compensation
4. Regional Cost Adjustments
5. Alternative measures of fiscal capacity
6. Tribal funding

4
1. Results of Equity Analysis

• Picus conducts analyses using a series of
  standard statistical finance measurements. These
  were
• Fiscal Neutrality correlations
• 1. revenues with property wealth and income
• Equity coefficients
• 1. Coefficient of Variation (CV)
• 2. McLoone Index
• 3. Verstegen Index

5
Equity and Fiscal Neutrality Conclusions

• The Maine system, as designed, met (or very
  nearly) met all the strict benchmarksfor fiscal
  neutrality and equity.
• ...the level of spending was not strongly
  related to the wealth of the SAU.
• ...overall per pupil spending levels were
  generally equitable across all students.
• We did find that the equity and fiscal
  neutrality of the system changed slightly for the
  worse when we include local revenue raised
  through property taxes above the level of EPS
  funding.
• While of concern, overall equity statistics
  suggested greater equity than found in most other
  states.

6
2. Charges given for the development of the EPS
and Picus eb funding models
Cost of a Comprehensive Education in all Maine
Schools
Cost of education for achieving the Learning
Results in all Maine schools.
7
Major Strategies used by Picus And Associates in
their Review

• Comparisons of Maine with other states.
• Public input
• Case studies of 5 schools
• Identification of EB model and comparison to EPS

8
2. Comparison of EPS and Picus Funding
ModelsComponents and cost added in EB model

• Disadvantaged youth 126,725,000()
• Additional PK resources10,000,000()
• Instructional coaches 62,500,000(N)
• Additional PD days 28,250,000()
• Substitute teachers 39,600,000()
• Supervisory duties 22,000,000(N)
• Key In additon to EPS resources NNew EB
  component

9
Comparison of EPS and Picus Funding
ModelsComponents and cost added in EB model

• Central Administration43,850,000()
• Regional Adjustment 44,750,000()
• Small SAU Adjustmnt 47,250,000(N)
• Assistant Principals 16,850,000(N)
• Technology resources 17,850,000()
• Student Activities 35,800,000()
• Total Additional Costs of Picus
  Model495,350,000

10
Comparison of EPS and Picus Funding Models Major
EPS Components and cost removed from Picus model

• LEP adjustment (-13,500,000)
• Education Technicians(-39,150,000)
• Library Technicians (-9,800,000)
• Principals (-17,000,000)
• Clerical staff (-20,000,000)
• Instructional materials(-36,500,000)
• Reduction of Costs in EPS-135,950,000

11
Total Cost of Picus model Relative to EPS and
Expenditures

• After comparing the EPS and EB comprehensive
  models, Picus reported that the
• Cost of Essential Programs and Services.
• 2012-13 EPS Allocation1,880 billion
• Cost of Picus comprehensive model
• 2012-13 total cost2,240 billion
• State and local education expenditures
• 2012-13 total expenditures2,080 billion

12
Additional Costs of Picus Comprehensive Funding
Formula

• Additional costs above EPS495,350,000
• Reduction of costs in EPS -135,950,000
• Costs of Picus Model above EPS359,400,000
• Minus Amount if EPS Fully funded-51,000,000
• Net Addnl Cost of Picus Model309,000,000

13
Picus Resources in Support of Disadvantaged Youth

• Tutoring resources (1 FTE per 100 ED students)
• Extended day programs (1 FTE per 120 ED students)
• Summer school programs (1 FTE per 120 ED
  students)
• Addnl. pupil support (1 FTE per 100 ED students)
• LEP/ELL students (1 FTE per 100 ELL students)
• Special education (Census model 1 FTE and 0.5
  FTE aide per 150 regular students)

14
Picus Model for Early Childhood and Kindergarten
Education

• Picus model includes supports full-day preschool
  for 3 and 4-uear-olds, at least for children from
  families in poverty.
• Resouces include 1 FTE teacher and 1 FTE
  instructional aide for every 15 preschool
  students.
• Picus model incudes supports for full day
  kindergarten program for all students.
• Resources include counting kindergarten students
  as 1.0 student in the formula, the same as EPS.

15
Picus Model for Instructional Coaches

• Picus model adds 1 FTE instructional coach for
  every 200 students.

16
Picus Model for Professional Development

• Adds resources for elective teachers, to support
  instruction and provide time for staff to engage
  in collaborative professional development.
• Adds 5 additional professional development days
  to teacher school year.
• PD training100 per pupil

17
Picus model for Central Administration Costs

• Picus recommended 488 per pupil (vs. 215 in
  EPS) to support a prototypical 3900 student SAU
  central office, which includes
• Nine (9) professional staff
• Nine (9) clerical/secretarial staff
• One (1) computer technician

18
Picus model for Small SAU Adjustments

• Picus EB model based on SAUs with 3900 students.
• Picus concluded their formula works for SAUs as
  small as 975 students.
• For SAUs smaller than 975 students, Picus model
  adjusts staff ratios and resources.

19
3. Teacher CompensatioN Recommendations

• 1. Replace current approach to regional
  adjustments to teacher salary levels and shift to
  either a Comparable Wage Index or a Hedonic Wage
  Index.
• 2. Benchmark teacher salaries to salaries in
  Maine for jobs that are comparable to teaching,
  not to other states of the national average.
• 3. Shift salary structure to one more strongly
  linked to effectiveness rather than years of
  experience and education.
• (cont.)

20
Teacher CompensatioN Recommendations (cont.)

• 4. Maine could provide additional incentives for
  hard to staff subjects or hard to staff schools.
• 5. If Maine decided to create compensation
  incentives, they should be developed at the state
  level.

21
4. Recommendations for Regional Cost Adjustment

• Keep regional cost adjustment component in
  formula.
• Limitation of current cost adjustment is teacher
  salary differences 2004.
• Switch to Comparable Wage Index (CWI) developed
  by NCES in 2011.

22
5. Alternative Measures of Fiscal Capacity

• Possible solutions to High Property wealth/Low
  Per-capita Income SAUs
• Assistance to school districts Multiplicative
  income factor for measuring SAUs relative
  wealth.
• Assistance to Individual Taxpayers Expand
  current circuit breaker program.

23
Options to mitigate inequalities caused by local
revenue raising capacity

• Add power equalization (a guaranteed tax base)
  component to funding formula.
• Prohibit SAUs raising funds beyond certain limit.
• Raising funding to all SAUs to match wealthy
  SAUs.
• Leave inequalities in place.

24
6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Tribal
Funding

• 3 Indian Education schools receive per pupil
  revenues substantially higher than state average.
• The mix of state and federal funding for tribal
  schools set by 1980 Indian Claims Settlement Act.
• Most Maine SAUs eligible apply for supplemental
  Title VII funds.
• Maine should decide if different options should
  be developed for secondary students exiting the
  tribal schools.
• Suggest Maine consider studying tribal schools
  spending patterns.

25
Sources

• Picus et al reports
• http//www.maine.gov/legis/opla/EPSReviewPart1Pic
  usandAssoc20294-1-2-13.pdf
• http//www.maine.gov/legis/opla/EPSfundingPart202
  FinalReport.pdf
• Education Committee MEPRI Commission Report
• https//usm.maine.edu/sites/default/files/cepare/E
  PSCmmssnRprtF_1_9_2015Web.pdf