Agenda - 12-17-1996 - 8k - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 11 `Jb l Ji al JIJ i.1J LUUJ tiI.�LL SljUVO Proposed Goals (As Approved by Board of Directors) Public Education 1. State Funding for Public Schools Support legislation to maintain state educational expenditures with m aximum flexibility at the local level, as follows: • State funding to improve early childhood education; • Full state funding of a basic education program,with emphasis being given to lowering student-teacher ratios; and • Full state funding of the Low Wealth Schools Supplemental Fund: the funding formula should be modified to apply a 10% partial penalty,rather than a'100% penalty, in the first year a county falls below the 100%level on th-t measures of "local effort." The same partial penalty should apply with respect:to the Small Schools Fund. This goal, carried over from the 1995 Session,was modified by the Legislative Goals Committee by adding"with maximum flexibility at the local level" in the introductory language and by adding"lowering student teacher rations"in the second ballet. The Basic Education Program(SEP),adopted by the General Assembly in the mid 1980s,was delayed in implementation(originally scheduled over can years)by the stag's budget problems of the early 1990's. State officials estimate that the BEP is appruin lately 75% fimded with the cost of remaining implementation between$250 and$300 million, depending on teacher salary initiatives and other variables. The Board of Directors voted to support a basic education program rather than the specific program begun in the mid 80's. The Low Wealth School funding program currently provides$46 million to school systems in 71 counties. The complex formula used to determine which school systems are eligible for funding uses an"effective county tax rate"measured against the"effective state average tax rate"and, if the county figure falls below the state figure, can cause a system to be ineligible. Since prior year effective tax calculations are used, a county can lose eligibility, and 100%of its lqw wealth&n4j A,because of actions and tax increases in other counties over which it has no control. This proposal seeks to modif i the calculation to reduce the penalty in the first year a county falls below the state average;; so that the loss would be 10%of its funding rather than 1000/6. Full state funding of the Low Wealth School Supplemental Fund is estimated at$96 million, $50 million more than current appropriations_ The Board of Directors added a similar provision with respect to penalties assessed in administration of the Small Schools Fund.