PUBLIC S

CHOOL FUNDIN

G

IN B

ERKS COUNTY

COMM

UNITY M

EETING:

6.23.2

015

WELCOM

E

INTRODUCTIO

NS

DR. JIL

L M. H

ACKMAN, E

xecutive D

irecto

r,

BCIU

GENERAL COMMENTS

• State Funding Issues Impacting:• our Children’s Education Opportunities,

• our Local Taxes, and

• our communities.

• Investing in the Education of Our Children

PA FACTS

• Pennsylvania is only one of three states that does not have a legislatively approved basic education funding formula.

• Adoption of the BEF Commissions' funding formula is critical.

CHANGING

BERKS COUNTY

& EDUCATIO

NAL

LANDSCAPE

change | CHanj |• verb

1. Make or become different:[with obj. ]:a proposal to change the law

• Make or become a different substance entirely; transform:

• [no obj.] (of the moon) arrive at a fresh phase; become new.

POWER IN

NUM

BERS

BERKS COUNTY

67,100+STUDENTS

5,000+TEACHERS & STAFF

POWER IN

NUM

BERS

BERKS COUNTY

18 SUPERINTENDENTS

POWER IN

NUM

BERS

BERKS COUNTY

PANELIST FRAMEWORK

• District Profile

• Impact Points/Critical Issues• Pension

• Special Education

• Charter/Cyber Charter Schools

• Staffing/Collective Bargaining

• Outcome/Goals

SUSAN SPICKA

REGIO

NAL CO

NTACT , Educat i

on Vote

rs o

f Pennsylv

ania

PANELISTS

• Dr. Beverly A. Martin, SuperintendentExeter Township School District

• Dr. Khalid N. Mumin, SuperintendentReading School District

• Dr. Robert F. Pleis, SuperintendentTwin Valley School District

• Diane J. Richards, Director of Finance & Support Services - Wilson School District

• Otto W. Voit, III, Board MemberMuhlenberg School District

• David W. Patti, President & CEOPA Business Council

SUPERINTENDENT,

Exeter TownshipSchool District

DR. BEVERLY A. MARTIN

The Exeter TownshipSchool District

Fair Funding Formula PresentationJune 23, 2015

Berks County Intermediate Unit

District Overview

4113 Students in grades K-12

315 professional staff

25 administrators

340 support staff

27% Economically Disadvantaged

Covers 26 square miles in 2 municipalities (Exeter Township and St. Lawrence Borough) in southern Berks County

6 school buildings: 3 K-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12

30 homeless students

739 (18%) students with disabilities

08.09 09.10 10.11 11.12 12.13 13.14 14.15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$1278 4.76%

$1306 4.78%

$1623 5.64%

$2525 8.65%

$3515 12.36%

$4793 16.93%

$6196 21.40%

$7774 25.84%

$9092 29.27%

$9724 30.25%

$10402 31.28%

$11034 32.08%

$539,742 $590,847 $745,379$1,250,144

$1,680,947$2,208,013

$2,854,957

$3,581,693$4,182,345

$4,473,185$4,785,373

$5,075,821

By 2019-2020 Net Employer Contributions will increase by $4.5 million on an annual basis or 3.5 mills since 2008-09

Total Retirement Contributions (Thousands) Net Retirement Cost (Thousands)

ETSD PSERs Employer Contributions(in thousands)

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Final Budget

05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$217,192

$313,521 $346,184

$446,967 $455,334 $525,292

$954,121

$1,331,820 $1,381,404

$1,283,800

$1,360,000

$34,721 $59,722 $93,518 $103,855 $117,963 $103,670

Total Charter School Tuition Expenditure (in thousands)State Reimb of Charter School Tuition (in thousands)

From FY 2008-09 to FY 2015-16 Charter School Tuition costs have increased by $1.2 million on an annual basis or .9

Total Charter School Tuition Expenditure

State Reimbursement for Charter School

ETSD Charter School Tuition Costs

ETSD Cyber Charter Tuition Rates

05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15$0.00

$5,000.00

$10,000.00

$15,000.00

$20,000.00

$25,000.00

$7,041 $7,433 $7,800 $8,245 $8,528 $8,418$8,940

$9,258 $9,458 $9,841

$13,874$14,316

$15,496$16,523

$17,583

$19,216 $19,593

$21,541 $21,930

$23,700

Nonspecial Education Expenditures per ADM Special Education Expenditures per ADM

ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGETFY 2006-

2007FY 2007-

2008FY 2008-

2009FY 2009-

2010FY 2010-

2011FY 2011-

2012FY 2012-

2013FY 2013-

2014FY 2014-

2015FY 2015-

2016

$-

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$6,150,336 $6,660,184 $7,458,319

$8,542,976 $8,577,522

$9,383,371 $9,310,293

$10,028,618 $10,228,177

$10,784,769 $1,251,141

$1,392,064

$1,600,992

$1,550,097 $1,701,254

$1,686,286 $1,835,731

$1,989,587 $2,165,573 $2,241,497

Direct Instruction & Support ServicesAvg Annual Increase of $625,000 over the last 9 years

1200 - Special Education Instruction Special Education Support Services for Students with Disabilities

ETSD Special Education Costs

ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGETFY 2006-

2007FY 2007-

2008FY 2008-

2009FY 2009-

2010FY 2010-

2011FY 2011-

2012FY 2012-

2013FY 2013-

2014FY 2014-

2015FY 2015-

2016

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$2,550,393 $2,689,002

$2,813,665

$3,576,390ARRA Funds

$2,827,859

$2,706,947 $2,542,311 $2,497,103

$2,616,398 $2,770,368

From 07-08 to 14-15 Annual Funding has only increased by $66,000

Special Education - State & Federal Funding

Special Education – State & Federal Funding

ETSD General Fund Expense

All Other $47,601,034

68%

Special Ed Incl Support

Functions $13,026,266

19%

PSERs $7,774,459

11%

Charter School Tuition

$1,360,000 2%

FY 2015-2016

All Other, $47,425,406

81%

Special Ed Incl Support

Functions $9,059,311

16%

PSERs $1,278,301

2%

Charter School

Tuition, $446,967

1%

FY 2008-2009

Cultural Changes: The People Impact

Tax increases: local burden

Staff Morale - job security threatened; insecurity and fear of outsourcing, program cuts, higher class sizes, furloughs and demotions, wage freezes, reductions in benefits

Collective bargaining process is much more challenging than in the past; more contentious; agreements take much longer to achieve, causing more conflict and becoming a distraction from the primary mission of education.

Deferred educational initiatives; deferred facility maintenance

In Summary…. PA is among the worst in the U.S. at funding public schools. That is not

something our state should be proud of.

PA is only one of three states in the nation that does not have a formula for funding its public schools that takes into account local demographics and other cost-driving factors.

In Exeter, 70% of our funding comes from local sources - our taxpayers - who are less than happy that they must bear that burden. Exeter’s tax base is very residential, which impacts some of our citizens who can least afford to pay. Only 29% of our revenue is from state funding sources, and 1% from federal sources.

The majority of our costs cannot legally be reduced because they are tied to state and federal laws and mandates or governed by collective bargaining agreements that are in place.

Those that can be controlled are the things that make our District what it is and make it a great place to work and learn: its athletic and arts programs, extracurricular activities, and full day kindergarten.

How Will A Fair Funding Formula Help??

Serious inequities in the distribution of funds to public school districts result when there is no formula, resulting in “wealthy” and “poor” school districts. Students most in need are at a financial disadvantage, and frequently do not get the resources they need to provide a basic education. PA ranks dead last in the nation in providing equitable funding for the education of its children.

PA ranks 47th out of 50 in its investment in education to all of its school districts.

A fair formula accounts for the unique needs of school districts and students, and establishes a school funding formula that is equitable, adequate, comprehensive and consistent.

A Fair Funding Formula will change the landscape of public school budgeting by providing a clear and predictable way for school district CFO’s and boards to determine the state Basic Education Subsidy budgeting for the next fiscal year.

Currently the process is akin to a politically-charged guessing game played while blindfolded, and can lead to over-dependence on property taxes, which become a more stable and predictable way to secure funding for needed programs and services.

SUPERINTENDENT,

ReadingSchool District

DR. KAHLID N. MUMIN

JUNE 23, 2015

BCIU `Community Meeting

DEMOGRAPHICS

READING SCHOOL DISTRICT

DEMOGRAPHICS

All students and staff report a safe comfortable learning environment.

DEMOGRAPHICS

ONE VISION. ALL STUDENTS. ONE READING.

ONE VISION. ALL STUDENTS. ONE READING.

STRATEGIC PLAN FOCUS POINTS

READING SCHOOL DISTRICT

2015-2020

• SAFE SCHOOLS

• ACADEMICS

• COMMUNICATION/ENGAGEMENT

• FINANCE/OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

• PARTERNSHIPS

ONE VISION. ALL STUDENTS. ONE READING.

DISTRICT GOALS

READING SCHOOL DISTRICT

• ALL STUDENTS AND STAFF REEPORT A SAFE, COMFORTABLE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

• TO IMPLEMENT A COMMON CIRRICULUM, BASED ON HIGH STANDARDS AND EVIDENCE-BASED PEDAGOGY, ACROSS THE DISTRICT THAT CLOSES THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP THROUGHOUT OUT SCHOOLS AND STUDENT POPULATIONS WHILE ADEQUATELY PREPARING STUDENTS FOR COLLEGE AN CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

• DELIVER EFFECTIVE AND TIMELY COMMUNICATION/INFORMATION TO ALL DISTRICT STAKEHOLDERS, AND WE EFFECTIVELY TELL OUR STORY OF SUCCESS.

• FUND AND SUPPORT QUALITY EDUCATION AND FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, WHILE ENSURING THE LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE DISTRICT. ALSO, PRODUCE A BALANCED WITH ACCURATE AND TIMELY REPORTING TO OUR VARIED AGENCIES.

• COLLABORATE WITH KEY STAKEHOLDER-PARTNERS TO ADVANCE/PROMOTE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE FOR ALL STUDENTS ENROLLED IN OUR 19 SCHOOLS.

ONE VISION. ALL STUDENTS. ONE READING.

Questions

SUPERINTENDENT,

Twin ValleySchool District

DR. ROBERT F. PLEIS

Twin Valley School District

Our District is located in both Berks and Chester County Comprised of 87 square miles Enrollment of 3,400 students Three elementary schools (K-4), middle school (5-8) and a

high school (9-12) Twin Valley is innovative and student centered We have very little commercial development with

farmland and residential homes dominating our landscape Our schools are the center of our communities

Overview

Federal and State Revenue Changes

School District Federal revenues were reduced over the last eight years

Basic Education subsidy has experienced reductions and is not consistently funded in a fair and equitable way

This has forced school districts to rely on local revenues

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014$4,000,000

$4,100,000

$4,200,000

$4,300,000

$4,400,000

$4,500,000

$4,600,000

$4,700,000

$4,800,000

$4,900,000

$5,000,000

$4,481,331

$4,633,704

$4,299,042 $4,272,065

$4,765,854 $4,765,677

$4,923,521

Basic Education Funding

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

Federal Education Funding

Non-ARRA Federal ARRA Funds

Current Federal Funding is below 2009 levels

Stimulus Funding was non-recurring Federal

Funding

Reductions in Federal funding

Unpredictable State funding

Leads to a greater dependence on local revenues

Largest revenue source is Real Estate tax

Assessment reductions result in loss of Real Estate Tax Revenue

Federal and StateRevenue Impact Summary

School Districts are faced with many expense drivers that are outside of their control PSERS Special Ed Charter School State Mandates

Expense Drivers

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20210

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

7.13

4.76 4.785.64

8.65

12.36

16.93

21.4

25.84

29.2730.25

31.2832.08 32.02

PSERS Employer Pension RatePe

nsio

n Ra

te (%

)

PSERS Pension Rates are provided by the State

Rate increases were established to address under-funded State Pension system

Historical PSERS Expenses

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15*

2015-16*

2016-17**

2017-18**

2018-19**

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$9,000,000

* Budgeted amounts ** Projected amounts

One out of six students in Pennsylvania receives special education services.

There is some state and federal funding available but not based on student specific needs

Federal funds have not increased and state fund increases have not kept pace with expenses and mandates

SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING

Historical Special Ed Expenses

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

Locally fundedState funded

Charter Schools & Cyber Education

• Pennsylvania Summary: (based on 2011-2012 data) 150 Charter Schools 14 Cyber Charter Schools

• Pennsylvania’s current law allows charter and cyber schools to operate under separate rules than public schools.

• District pays over $1 Million to Cyber/Charter Schools annually

Charter Schools & Cyber Education

• Currently, payments to charter and cyber schools are not based on their expenses incurred Cost based on state calculated Twin Valley tuition cost

• Cyber and charter schools don’t have same expenses as brick and mortar schools

• Funding formulas historically have distributed more money for special education students than used 2012 charter schools received $350 million from school districts for

special education tuition, yet only spent $150 million on costs.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014$0.00

$200,000.00

$400,000.00

$600,000.00

$800,000.00

$1,000,000.00

$1,200,000.00

Charter School Expenses

Charter School Expense Charter School Subsidy

Charter School Tuition Expenses are based upon the number of students attending Char-ter Schools and the average cost to educate a student in the Twin Valley School District

In 2012, State Charter School Funding was eliminated from the State Budget

STATE MANDATES

1. Educator Effectiveness-PVAAS Roster Verification2. School Performance Profile 3. Teacher & Principal Evaluation Survey 4. School Improvement 5. PIMS (Staff & Student) 6. Title IX Reporting7. Health Care Plans 8. Homeless Student Data9. Safe Schools10. Behavior Restraint

REPORTING/DATA

STATE MANDATES

1. Act 126 – Child Abuse Recognition & Reporting Training

2. Act 31 – Act 126 + 2 Hours Upon Professional Licensure Renewal

3. Act 168 – Extensive Background Search

4. Act 153 – Volunteer Background Checks

5. Act 71 – Suicide Prevention Training (4 Hours Every 5 Years)

6. Act 48 –Required professional development hours for teachers.

7. Act 45-Required professional development hours for administrators.

HUMAN RESOURCES/TRAINING

STATE MANDATES

1. PSERS

2. Prevailing Wage

3. Plan Con

4. Act 104 Anti-Bullying Policy & MOU

5. Surrogate Parent Mandate

6. Comprehensive Planning

BUSINESS & OPERATIONS

STATE MANDATES

1. Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)

2. Alignment to PA Core Standards

3. PSSA

4. PASA

5. Keystone Exams

6. Keystone Project Based Assessments

CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION & ASSESSMENT

STATE MANDATES

1. Effective Practices for Secondary Transition 2. PDE’s Indicator 14: Postsecondary Employment and/or

Education Exit Surveys3. Special Education Cyclical Compliance Monitoring4. IDEA / Chapter 145. Section 5046. Annual Public Notice Regarding Special Education

STUDENT SERVICES

STATE MANDATES

7. Annual Notice Regarding Non-Discrimination 8. Independent Educational Evaluator List9. Right to Education Local Task Force10. Alternative Education / Disruptive Youth (AEDY) Grant11. Student Assistance Program (SAP)12. Maintenance of Effort (MOE)13. Child Find Requirements

STUDENT SERVICES, continued

Impact on Twin Valley

Annual increase in local taxes to the index plus exceptions over eight years

Significant reduction in staff 27 teachers, four administrative positions, and 6 support staff.

Stifling of district growth through the reduction of resources and program opportunities

Increased class size The effect of numerous employee concessions such as a two year

salary freeze, delayed salary schedule, increased job responsibilities, low morale and concern for job security

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & SUPPORT SERVICES,

Wilson School District

MRS. DIANE J. RICHARDS, CPA

Wilson School DistrictEmpowering our Students to Create Their Own Future

District Profile

Student Enrollment K-12 – 5,9968 Buildings (5 Elem, 2 MS, 1 HS)District covers 38.6 square miles across

four municipalities 27% Economically DisadvantagedELL Population of 151 students (2.5%)1,035 Special Needs Students (17.3%)Aid ratio of 45.46%Budget of $95,570,675 with 24.6 mills

Basic Education Funding

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

Series1 Series3 Series5 Series7 Ready to Learn Grant

Special Education Funding/Costs

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-160.00

2,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

12,000,000.00

14,000,000.00

Series1 Series3 Local/District Share

Cyber/Charter School Trends

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

State Reimbursement District's Share of Expense

Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS)

Contribution Rate Total Expenditure Increase District Share Millage Impact

2010-11 5.64% 2,215,389 2011-12 8.65% 3,429,835 1,214,446 607,223 0.252012-13 12.36% 4,924,986 1,495,151 747,576 0.312013-14 16.93% 6,904,910 1,979,924 989,962 0.412014-15 21.40% 8,844,566 1,939,656 969,828 0.402015-16 25.84% 10,985,795 2,141,229 1,072,615 0.452016-17 est 29.69% 13,005,897 2,020,102 1,010,051 0.422017-18 est 30.62% 13,748,622 742,725 371,363 0.152018-19 est 31.56% 14,524,957 776,335 388,168 0.162019-20 est 32.23% 15,204,146 679,189 339,595 0.14

Cultural Changes

Staffing◦ Shorter contract terms◦ Salary freezes (2 separate years for Wilson)◦ Positions being eliminated thru attrition

Building level/Administrative decisions◦ Larger class sizes in departments that are not heavily

tested (Social Studies, World Language, Phys Ed, etc)◦ Every program is evaluated for sustainability◦ Fewer dollars available for professional development

and classroom enrichment opportunities such as field trips

What do District’s need? Stable and fair funding from State

◦ Need to know ahead of time how much funding to expect and how that funding is calculated

◦ Northampton SD which is comparable to Wilson in student enrollment, wealth and total budget is expected to receive $14,313,405 in Basic Ed subsidy from the State while Wilson is expecting $7,652,717

Adequate funding from State◦ State contributes only 22% to Wilson, with local dollars representing

77%, and federal dollars 1%◦ Pennsylvania ranks 47thth among the 50 states for its contribution to

education Relief from state mandates

◦ Any new requirements from the state should be fully funded or at least partially funded; otherwise the costs are recouped from eliminations or passed to the taxpayers

VICE PRESIDENT,

Muhlenberg School Board

TREASURER,

PSBA Governing Board

BCIU BOARD MEMBER,

Muhlenberg School District

OTTO W. VOIT, III

FAIR FUNDING IN PENNSYLVANIA

• State’s contribution to public education

• Pensions robbing Peter to pay Paul

• Effect on taxes

• PA is only one of 3 states that do not have a

fair funding formula

FAIR FUNDING IN PENNSYLVANIA

CONSEQUENSES OF NOT IMPLEMENTING A FAIR FUNDING FORMULA:

• Education/School Districts

• Staff

• Community

• Pennsylvania State

FAIR FUNDING IN PENNSYLVANIA

BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING A FAIR FUNDING FORMULA:

• Education/School Districts

• Staff

• Community

• Pennsylvania State

FAIR FUNDING IN PENNSYLVANIA

The time is now to implement a fair funding formula!

Contact your state representative and state senator now!

MR. DAVID W. PATTI

PRESIDENT & CEO

PA Business Council

QUESTION

& ANSW

ERS