San Mateo Foster City School District General Overview of Funding - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

San Mateo‐Foster City School District

General Overview of Funding Presentation to our Community Monday, January 10, 2011

Presentation Items

• 1. Background
• 2. Demographics
• Statewide
• County of San Mateo
• 3. Background on School Finance
• Brief History
• Proposition 98
• 4. School District Funding Comparisons
• Revenue Limit vs. Basic Aid Districts
• Revenue Limit Only Districts
• Unrestricted General Funds: Expenditure Breakdown
• 5. Budget lifecycle for school districts
• 6. Alternative Funding for Schools

2

Background

Funding for schools in California is a complex subject. Funding comes from many sources – primarily from the state, but with significant components from the federal government, local sources, and gifts. Some funds come with restrictions while

• thers may be used for any purpose. Understanding the revenue

sources, including the certainty of funding from year‐to‐year and the restrictions on each source is the starting point for understanding the District’s financing.

3

Section 2: Demographics State of California County of San Mateo

4

California’s Public Education System

California’s K‐12 public education system includes: 550 Elementary School Districts 333 Unified School Districts 84 High School Districts 6,252,011 students 306,884 Actual Teachers (298,959.9 FTE) 303,385 Actual Classified Employees (administrative assistants, custodians, office assistants, etc.) California’s Charter Schools include: 746 Schools 285,617 students 13,801.7 FTE

Source: 2008‐09 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit

5

California’s Public Education System

Students in California’s public education system represent a diverse group, academically and ethnically. They include:

Socio‐ Economically Academically Ethnically

52.3%: Free and Reduced Lunch 24.2%: English Learners 49% Latino 27.9% White non Latino/Hispanic 8.4% Asian 7.3% African American non Latino/Hispanic 3.3% Filipino and Pacific Islander 0.7% American Indian

6

Source: 2008‐09 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit

California’s Public Education System: 15‐year trend

7

Year American Indian Asian Pacific Islander Filipino Hispanic Latino African‐ American White Multiple/No Response Total 46,446 526,403 39,510 168,112 3,064,607 454,780 1,741,655 210,498 6,252,011 0.74% 8.42% 0.63% 2.69% 49.02% 7.27% 27.86% 3.37% 100.00% 46,115 439,118 29,967 129,268 2,022,261 465,219 2,209,077 ‐‐ 5,341,025 0.90% 8.20% 0.60% 2.40% 37.90% 8.70% 41.40% ‐‐ 100% Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit ‐ CBEDS 1994‐95 Enrollment by Ethnicity in California's Public Schools 2008‐09

Overall, the Latino population in California’s public schools is growing at a faster rate than any other growth group. In 2008‐09, the Latino population comprised 49% of the students in K‐12 California schools. The White population has dropped to 28%.

San Mateo County: K‐12 Public Education

• San Mateo County has a total of:
• 17 elementary school districts
• 3 high school districts
• 3 unified school districts
• 1 County Office of Education
• The table to the right provides a

comparison of student population.

8

# District Name Enrollment 1 LA HONDA‐PESCADERO UNIFIED 371 2 BAYSHORE ELEMENTARY 429 3 WOODSIDE ELEMENTARY 458 4 BRISBANE ELEMENTARY 590 5 PORTOLA VALLEY ELEMENTARY 737 6 LAS LOMITAS ELEMENTARY 1,191 7 HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEMENTARY 1,473 8 MILLBRAE ELEMENTARY 2,135 9 MENLO PARK CITY ELEMENTARY 2,409 10 BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY 2,529 11 BELMONT‐REDWOOD SHORES ELEMENTA 2,749 12 SAN BRUNO PARK ELEMENTARY 2,619 13 SAN CARLOS ELEMENTARY 2,945 14 PACIFICA 3,111 15 CABRILLO UNIFIED 3,393 16 RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY 4,554 17 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH 5,150 18 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY 6,725 19 SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDU 570 21 SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 8,713 19 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 8,549 21 REDWOOD CITY ELEMENTARY 8,861 22 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 9,368 23 SAN MATEO‐FOSTER CITY ELEMENTARY 10,342 County Totals: 89,971 State Totals: 6,252,011

Source: 2008‐09 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit

San Mateo County: K‐12 Public Education

9

Students in San Mateo County public schools represent a diverse group. The following table highlights the ethnic diversity in four districts.

Source: 2008‐09 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit

Enrollment African American not Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Filipino Hispanic

• r

Latino Pacific Islander White not Hispanic Multiple

• r No

Response 10,342 2.52% 0.13% 21.03% 4.13% 30.16% 3.07% 32.12% 6.84% 1,473 0.41% 0.07% 25.32% 2.31% 2.38% 0.61% 68.30% 0.61% 2,529 1.20% 0.32% 18.78% 3.24% 11.27% 0.83% 54.25% 10.20% 8,549 2.80% 0.37% 23.30% 5.19% 24.72% 4.11% 36.46% 3.05% County‐wide 89,971 3.73% 0.35% 12.23% 10.16% 35.01% 2.86% 31.98% 3.69% District San Mateo‐Foster City School District Hillsborough City Elementary School District Burlingame Elementary School District San Mateo Union High School District

San Mateo County: K‐12 Public Education

10

Students in San Mateo County public schools represent a diverse group socio‐economically. The following table highlights the diversity in four districts.

Source: 2008‐09 California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit

English Learners

• Avg. Class

Size Free or Reduced Price Meals # of Students per Computer

26.29% 23.9 30.03% 4.1 2.31% 20.6 0.00% 2.5 21.00% 25.5 11.15% 3.7 10.78% 26.9 13.15% 4.1

District San Mateo‐Foster City School District Hillsborough City Elementary School District Burlingame Elementary School District San Mateo Union High School District

Section 3: Background on School Finance Brief History Proposition 98

11

School finance background

Each state in the United States governs its own public education system and decides how to pay for it

The United States Constitution does not make any federal

provisions for public education

Every state’s constitution guarantees some level of free

public schooling for its citizens Historically, local property taxes were the major source of funding for public schools

12

School finance background

Proposition 13

• Proposition 13 was passed by California voters in 1978
• Key provisions:
• Property taxes limited to 1% of assessed value
• Annual increases limited to CPI, not to exceed 2%
• Property can be reassessed to current values upon change of ownership
• Parcel taxes (fixed amount per parcel, not based on assessed value) allowed but

require 2/3 vote.

• Bond measures for construction can be approved. Depending on type of bond

measure, 55% or 66.67%

• Issue: Because of limits on property taxes, growing inequality between high‐

and low‐wealth districts.

13

EQUALIZING SCHOOL FUNDING

• 1976 – California Supreme Court decides Serrano v. Priest.
• Serrano found that California’s system of funding local schools violates the equal protection clause of

the California Constitution

• Every child is entitled to be treated relatively equally
• State to institute changes by 1980
• While Serrano was pending, California Legislature adopted new system to balance funding
• Led to creation of “revenue limit” and “basic aid” funding
• 1986 – second Serrano case decided that this system satisfied constitutional concerns
• Overall effect: major change in paradigm for funding public education
• Primary responsibility for funding schools shifting from local districts to State.

14

School finance background

Serrano v. Priest

• Proposition 98 adopted by voters in 1988
• Purpose was to guarantee stable, minimum funding levels for K‐14 education, now that State was assuming

primary responsibility for funding

• Prior year’s funding, plus inflation and attendance growth (based on ADA)
• Reality is that the amount the State spends varies from year‐to‐year, based on three “tests.”
• Test 1 – percentage of State budget in base year of 1987/1988 (app. 39%) (not used)
• Test 2 – prior year’s funding, plus attendance growth, plus inflation based on increase in per capita personal

income (in good growth years)

• Test 3 – prior year’s funding, plus attendance growth, plus inflation based on increase in State’s per capita

general fund (used in slow or negative growth years)

• BUT State may suspend Proposition 98
• If Proposition 98 is not fully funded, the gap, called the “maintenance factor” is supposed to be made up in future

years when growth permits.

• In 2004, State does the “triple flip”:
• Vehicle tax rolled back
• Larger share of property taxes allocated to local government to make up
• State agrees to backfill property tax share shifted from schools to local government
• Result: school districts even more dependent on State’s general fund for operating revenues

15

School finance background

Proposition 98

• Before Proposition, local districts provided about 2/3 of their own funding
• After Proposition 13, Serrano v. Priest, the new “revenue limit” funding model, and

proposition 98, the State of California assumed primary responsibility for funding local school districts

• CURRENT FUNDING SOURCES FOR LOCAL DISTRICTS
• Federal Government

10%

• State taxes*

60%

• Schools’ share of property taxes*

23%

• Lottery

2%

• Local revenues^

6%

*Proposition 98 funds

^Includes local parcel taxes, foundations and gifts, fees charged, etc.

16

School finance background

Effect of Proposition 13, Serrano v. Priest, and Position 98

Section 4: School District Funding Comparisons

Fund Sources Revenue Limit vs. Basic Aid Districts Unrestricted General Funds: Expenditure Breakdown

17

School District Funding

Public school districts receive funding from a variety of local, state, and federal sources.

Restricted/Categorical. Some of the funds must be used for

specific purposes, such as special education, class size reduction, and English language learners

Unrestricted General Funds. The rest are for general purposes

18

School Funding: Revenue Limits

Revenue Limit. The unrestricted funds are allocated based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA). ADA is the measure used for the major source of a district’s funding.

It is a combination of local property taxes and state taxes. Each of the nearly 1,000 school districts in California has its

• wn revenue limit, based on its type (elementary, high, or

unified), size (small or large), historical spending patterns, and a multitude of other variables. Revenue Sources. State and local funds are combined to make up a district’s revenue limit funding.

19

School Funding: Revenue Limit District Funding vs. Basic Aid District Funding

• How does it all work?

20

Money from local property taxes Money from state

Property taxes Partially fill bucket State money tops off bucket

Imagine a bucket. Each district has a different‐sized bucket, representing its individualized revenue limit. 1. Revenues raised through local property taxes are dumped into the district’s bucket, and if the bucket is not filled all the way, then 2. The state comes by and tops it off with state tax revenues.

Revenue Limit District Funding

School Funding: Revenue Limit District Funding vs. Basic Aid District Funding What if the bucket is completely filled by local property tax revenues?

Then the state has no need to "top off" the bucket. If the bucket overflows with local property taxes, the

district gets to keep the overage

Prior to 2003 received an additional $120 per ADA.

State contributed an additional $120 per ADA to fulfill its constitutional guarantee to provide all public schools with "basic aid."

21

School Funding: Revenue Limit District Funding vs. Basic Aid District Funding

• Districts whose buckets are filled by local property taxes are called "basic aid

districts“

• The $120 per ADA pre 2003 guaranteed funding from the state is/was called

"basic aid"

• Each year, roughly 60 districts are categorized as basic aid (although with such

significant State budget reductions, Districts are increasingly relying on local property taxes only). Because local property tax revenues fluctuate from year to year, some districts are basic aid one year but not necessarily the next.

22

Basic Aid District Funding

School District Funding

Inequalities in K‐14 public schools remain

In about 6‐7% of California’s 1,000 school districts, however,

property taxes fill up or exceed their share of the revenue

• limit. Historically, it was about 6%, but with such significant

reductions by the State, there are now more districts that rely solely on their property taxes.

23

Charter Schools: San Mateo County

Charter schools are part of the state’s public education system and are funded by public dollars The number of charter schools State‐wide has increased annually The number of charter schools in San Mateo County has grown from

11 charter schools in 2000‐2001 to 13 charter schools in

2008‐09

3,581 students in 2000‐01 to 5,631 students in 200809

24

Unrestricted General Funds: Expenditure Breakdown

25 Source: San Mateo-Foster City School District, 2008-09 Adopted Budget Other includes books, utilities, supplies, services and other operating expenditures, and transfers.

2008-09 Unrestricted General Fund Budget

Salaries and Benefits 91.44% Other 8.56%

Unrestricted General Funds: Expenditure Breakdown

26 Source: San Mateo-Foster City School District, 2008-09 Adopted Budget Other includes books, utilities, supplies, services and other operating expenditures, and transfers.

Section 5: Budget lifecycle

27

Governor submits budget to Senate and Assembly Article IV, Section 12 of California Constitution Districts incorporate State budget information (COLA, deficit factor, lottery revenue, etc.,) into budgets and begin budget Development * * * 2nd Interim Report: March 15 P2 ADA cutoff: April 15 May Revise District Administration submit budget to their Board of Trustees for approval and adoption June 15 * * * While State budget has not necessarily been adopted, district budget incorporates most recent information from State Once State Budget is passed, District Administration Update their budgets and submit revisions to Board of Trustees * * * Year‐end close: July 1 – August

January February ‐ May June July ‐ ~August

District closes the prior fiscal year and submits Unaudited Actuals to Board of Trustees September 15 * * * 1st Interim Report: December 15

September ‐ December

Key Factors in Budget Development

• Enrollment projections
• Strategic plan priorities
• Meetings with key administrators

2nd Interim: Current year actuals July 1 – January 31 May Revise: Update to Governor’s January budget 1st Interim: Current year actuals July 1 – October 31

Section 6: Alternative Funding for Schools

School Bonds Parcel Taxes Magnet Grants Title I and Other Federal Funding Private Fundraising

28

Alternative Funding for Schools

School Bonds

School Bonds

• Approved by 55% Vote
• Use restricted to facilities and related capital equipment
• Cannot be used for classroom salaries or general operating expenses
• Citizen Oversight Committee may be required

29

Alternative Funding for Schools

Parcel Taxes

Parcel Taxes

• Approved by 66.67% Vote
• Flat amount per parcel, commercial and residential
• May provide exemption for seniors’ residences
• May be used for general purposes stated in ballot measure such as
• Class size reduction
• Books, musical instruments, computers
• Salaries and athletics
• Citizen Oversight if stated in ballot measure

30

Alternative Funding for Schools

Magnet Grants Magnet Grants

• Issued by federal government
• Nationwide competition
• Reduce segregation/increase diversity through choice
• Spanish immersion
• Mandarin immersion
• Math and Science (elementary school)
• S.T.E.M. Academy (middle school)
• Montessori (elementary and middle schools)
• Performing Arts/Arts and Technology
• International Baccalaureate (elementary and middle schools)

31

Alternative Funding for Schools

Title I and Other Federal Funding

Title 1 and Other Federal Funding Federal funding based on socio‐economic disadvantaged population Categorical funding for programs to improve academic performance

32

Alternative Funding for Schools

Private Fundraising

33

Enrollment Funding Per Student Hillsborough 1,475 $3,030,000 $2,054.24 Burlingame 2,540 $872,000 $343.31 San Mateo Foster City* 11,000 $163,000 $14.82 SCHOOL FOUNDATIONS AND ENROLLMENT 2009‐2010

*Individual PTA fundraising not included

Comments and/or Questions

34

For more information regarding this presentation please contact:

Mark Hudak, President, Board of Trustees, San Mateo‐Foster City School District, MHUDAK@carr-mcclellan.com Micaela Ochoa, Chief Business Official, San Mateo‐Foster City School District, mochoa@smfc.k12.ca.us