The budget increases for tuition support, when viewed in the context of the past eight budgets, were truly anemic. This is the first time in the eight budgets (16 years) when funding increases did not exceed 2%, except for the budgets of 2009 and 2011 when the Great Recession controlled the agenda. The strong push to expand vouchers appears to have been accompanied by a lower priority and diminished interest in funding public schools.
Summary of Budgets since 1999
Attached is a summary of the past eight school funding formulas. Every time a budget is written, the cover page on the funding formula clearly shows the percentage increase for total funding for each of the two years of the biennium. This figure is well publicized in the media. The attached chart focuses just on that percentage increase, showing what the increases have been for the past 16 years. I have personally observed the budget process in all of these years.
The increase in “total funding” this year was 2% in the first year and 1% in the second year. The Governor’s budget in January had a 1% increase in both years, but the House budget in February and the Senate budget in April both raised the first year to 2%, and that is where the final budget ended up.
As the 16-year chart shows, 2% and 1% are very low increases, lower than all budgets except the Great Recession budgets of 2009 and 2011.
In actual dollars, the 2% increase in FY2014 from the previous year (FY2013) required $132 million in new dollars. Then to repeat that 2% increase and raise it by an additional 1% in FY2015 required an increase of $201 million. To calculate these numbers, you need to know that budget makers raised the previous year (FY2013) base to $6.49 billion because full day kindergarten funding, which was a separate line item in previous budgets, was added to the tuition support budget this year.
Legislators like to add these two figures together ($132 M + $201M) to say that they raised tuition support by $333 million. It should be remembered that such figures are totals for two years.
The self-congratulations some legislators have displayed over this $333 million increase should be viewed in the context of previous school funding increases, which ranged from 2.4% to 4.7% from 1999 to until the Great Recession started. In Gov. Daniels first budget in 2005 during a rough economic time when Sen. Meeks kept saying “There is no money,” an increase of $220 million was added to tuition support for the biennium. Then in Gov. Daniels second budget in 2007, when the economy was better again, an increase of $710 million was added to the budget as the state took over full funding of the general fund. The 2011 budget showed a biennial decrease of $520 million from the previous budget for FY2011.
By now, eyes have glazed over from too many numbers.
Here is the bottom line:
The figures of 2% and 1% are very low increases for times when we are not in recession, as the chart shows. Only the Great Recession school formulas of 2009 and 2011 are lower. Testimony provided during the revenue forecast indicated to legislators that the cost of living in Indiana was going up at a rate of 1.6%, so the second year of the biennium did not even reach a cost of living increase. Considering that revenue forecasts in the 2013 session were all positive and the legislature found $500 million for tax cuts, part of a promise to cut taxes by $1.1 billion over four years, the conclusion seems obvious that limiting the school formula increase to 2% and 1% reflected a low priority for funding public education.
Vouchers and the Diminishing Motivation for Adequate Public School Funding
I have believed for a long time that funding a voucher program in Indiana would dampen the motivation to adequately fund public schools. Instead of pressing for world class educational programs, vouchers give legislators a clear response to use with parents who are pressuring legislators for more public school funding: If you don’t like your public school, you can switch to a private school with a voucher. The legislative drive to maximize support for public schools within the budgetary revenues available is now gone. In the midst of big surpluses, legislators now consider a token increase to be just fine.
Throughout testimony on HB 1003, parents who came to support the voucher bill said that what attracted them to the private school was a lower class size. Public school leaders would love to offer lower class sizes as well, but inadequate funding in recent years has forced districts to hire fewer teachers and to raise class sizes. This new budget gives little hope that future class sizes will improve.
School Choice: A Norm-Referenced Decision
School choice is essentially a comparative choice asking which school is better. Over time, no one has guaranteed that all of the choices will get better and better, meeting higher and higher standards. Over time, parents may be choosing the school that has lost the fewest art and music programs or has lost the fewest teachers in the budget cuts.
The task of each school in a choice marketplace is to look better than the other schools. Most of the marketing is based on math and language arts test scores. Over time, schools will shed their expensive comprehensive programs and zero in on producing dazzling math and language arts results. If parents complain to legislators about inadequate funding for popular programs which are being jettisoned, the refrain will become a mantra: If you don’t like your school, you can pick another one.
In this sense, vouchers have become a cover for low funding levels of public schools, levels that we are already seeing in this new budget. Raising the funding by merely 2% and 1% when Indiana was looking at a $2 billion surplus is just an omen of the policies to come in this era of ever-expanding vouchers.
Thanks for supporting public education in the 2013 session of the Indiana General Assembly!
Best wishes,
Vic Smith
INDIANA SCHOOL FUNDING IN THE PAST 16 YEARS
Source: The Summary Cover Page for School Formulas from 1999 through 2013
Prepared by Dr. Victor Smith, May 7, 2013
When the school funding formulas are passed every two years by the General Assembly, legislators see the bottom line percentage increases on a summary page. Figures that have appeared on this summary in the years that I have personally observed Indiana school budgets are listed below.
“STATE REGULAR DOLLARS” are the dollars for basic tuition support from state taxes. There was once a time when “state regular dollar” increases could vary widely from “total funding” increases due to including local property taxes in the school funding formula. Those days are now over.
“TOTAL FUNDING” includes support from local property taxes and additional state categorical funding, for example, special education funding and career & tech education.
YEAR..... ..STATE REGULAR DOLLARS... ..TOTAL FUNDING
1999 BUDGET:
.....FY 2000............+5.4%.....................+4.7%
.....FY 2001............+5.4%.....................+4.7%
2001 BUDGET:
.....FY 2002............+2.5%.....................+3.5%
.....FY 2003............+3.1%.....................+3.5%
2003 BUDGET:
.....FY 2004............+3.6%.....................+3.3%
.....FY 2005............+0.0%.($5.24B)............+2.9%.($5.87B)
2005 BUDGET:
.....FY 2006............+0.6%.($5.29B)............+2.6%.($5.94B)
.....FY 2007............-0.8%.($5.35B)............+2.4%.($6.02B)
2007 BUDGET:
.....FY 2008............+4.1%.($5.59B)............+4.1%.($6.27B)
.....FY 2009............+4.2%.($5.76B)............+3.6%.($6.48B)*
2009 BUDGET:
.....FY 2010...[actual].-0.3%.($5.74B)............+1.1%.($6.55B)**
.............[printed].+11.6%.[due to reduced base]
.....FY 2011............-1.1%.($5.67B)............+0.3%.($6.57B)**
2011 BUDGET:
.....FY 2012............-2.1%.($5.54B)...[actual].-4.5%.($6.28B)
........................................[printed].+0.5%
..................................................[due to reduced base]
.....FY 2013............+1.2%.($5.60B)............+1.0%.($6.34B)***
2013 BUDGET:
.....FY 2014............+2.0%.($5.99B)............+2.0%.($6.62B)
.....FY 2015............+1.0%.($6.05B)............+1.0%.($6.69B)
CONCLUSIONS:
- THE LOWEST STATE FUNDING INCREASES (1% OR LESS) WERE IN FY 2005, FY 2006&07, FY 2010&11, FY 2012&13 AND FY 2015.
- FOR THE FIRST TIME, STATE FUNDING ACTUALLY WENT DOWN IN BOTH COLUMNS FOR FY 2012, THE BUDGET YEAR STARTING JULY 1, 2011.
- THE “TOTAL FUNDING” INCREASES IN FY 2005, FY 2006 AND FY 2007 WERE PROVIDED BY RAISING LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES. THIS WAS ONE FACTOR LEADING TO THE PROPERTY TAX CRISIS WHICH HIT IN THE SUMMER OF 2007.
*included Federal stimulus/stabilization funding of $.61 Billion
**reduced by $.30 Billion in Dec. 2009 due to revenue shortfall and by $.327 Billion during 2010-11
***adding the full day kindergarten line item to the formula during the 2013 General Assembly raised the actual FY2013 base expenditures to $6.49B.
ICPE is working to promote public education and oppose privatization of schools in the Statehouse. I keep hearing reports that some public school supporters read these “Notes” with great interest but don’t translate that interest into joining ICPE. We had an outstanding lobbyist Joel Hand working hard to support public education throughout the session. We need additional memberships and donations to make the final payment on his contract for the session. We need your help! Please join us! Thanks to all who have joined or sent extra donations recently!
Go to www.icpe2011.com for membership and renewal information.
Some readers have asked about my background in Indiana public schools. Thanks for asking! Here is a brief bio:
I am a lifelong Hoosier and began teaching in 1969. I served as a social studies teacher, curriculum developer, state research and evaluation consultant, state social studies consultant, district social studies supervisor, assistant principal, principal, educational association staff member, and adjunct university professor. I worked for Garrett-Keyser-Butler Schools, the Indiana University Social Studies Development Center, the Indiana Department of Education, the Indianapolis Public Schools, IUPUI, and the Indiana Urban Schools Association, from which I retired as Associate Director in 2009. I hold three degrees: B.A. in Ed., Ball State University, 1969; M.S. in Ed., Indiana University, 1972; and Ed.D., Indiana University, 1977, along with a Teacher’s Life License and a Superintendent’s License, 1998.
No comments:
Post a Comment