The maximum amount allowed for spending, under the formula, is still determined by the number of certified enrolled students in a school district times the state cost per student. But some students count more than others. In other words, the number of students is weighted based on such criteria as student sharing, at risk students, ESL students, special education students, various weightings for AEA assistance, etc. In the Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont school district, there are 869 certified enrolled students. Altogether, under the student weighting criteria, this number is increased to a total of 1028.141 students. Even the state cost of $6001 per student is supplemented for such items as Teacher Salaries, Professional Development, Early Intervention, etc. After allowing for all the different weightings and cost supplements and all the different calculations that are involved, the total combined district cost under the formula is $7,349,946 as compared to $5,214,869 without the student weightings and student cost supplements. The E-B-F School district is not unique with this method of numerical weighting of students and the addition of supplemental costs. This system makes it difficult to compare the funding of schools throughout the state. It cannot be said that all public schools are funded equally or that all public school students in the state receive the same quality level of education.

As I showed under the simple skeletal formula used in my previous blog, there are still major disparities in funding between school districts just based on each district's overall property valuation. In my opinion, the weightings and supplements that are used in the formula tend to favor large urban schools over smaller rural schools, especially over rural consolidated or merged districts which cover a large geographical area. There are certain cost efficiencies in having fewer buildings with a larger number of students concentrated primarily in a urban district. For example, one of the major costs that merged rural districts have is transportation. Out of the 348 lines of instructions/calculations for completing the Aid and Levy worksheet, there are no weightings or supplements for providing transportation for fewer students over a much larger geographical area.

Transportation is just one small example. Not only do the larger urban schools get more miles per gallon of gas per each student transported, they also get more education per dollar spent for each student. Some allowance should be made for rural school districts having a smaller number of students spread out over a large geographical area covering up to two or three counties as compared to urban school districts having a large number of students concentrated in a smaller area.

There are other cost efficiencies and advantages that go with having a larger number of students. And, in addition, the larger urban schools are able to provide more educational opportunities by offering a variety of courses which are not available at smaller rural school districts. Even with some remedial classes which require specially trained teachers, there are more options and cost efficiencies because of the number of students involved. Maybe it is time, to scrap the school foundation formula that has been around since 1971. Over the past 40 years, there have been major changes in the school system with an emphasis on increasing the size of school districts. Many of the small rural schools have merged with other rural school districts in neighboring counties. But, there is a practical limit on how many of these school districts can be merged and how far a student can be transported to attend a public school. Perhaps, it is time for another formula which would take into account the difference between funding large urban school districts as compared to smaller rural school districts. The facts are that it is more costly to meet all the state's educational requirements in a small school district than in a large district. Rural school districts can only be consolidated up to a point.

If the same quality education is to be offered to all public K-12 students in the state of Iowa, the formula for property taxation and state aid to fund education will have to be changed.

Calculation of Property and State-Aid for Three Hypothetical School Districts

As mentioned earlier in the forum, when the School Foundation Formula was created in 1971, it was fairly simple. Today, the formula is much more complex and many steps are involved, but the basic principle of inversely basing state-aid on a school district's property tax valuation still applies. The examples below are strictly based on a skeletal formula to show the differences in taxes and state-aid for a relatively small school district with high property valuation as compared to districts with lower property valuations.

In this illustration, there are three hypothetical school districts which have the same number of certified enrolled students of 1,000 and the state cost allowed for each student is $6,000. Therefore, under the school foundation formula, the maximum amount allowed to be spent on education is a total of $6,000,000 for each school district (1,000 x $6000). But the property valuations for each school district varies, as follows:
 

                                                                Taxable Property Valuation

Total Taxable Property Valuation.

School District A $700,000,000

School District B $400,000,000

School District C $100,000,000

One of the first steps in calculating the formula is to apply a low uniform property tax of $5.40 per thousand dollars of taxable valuation for each school district. The amounts raised under this uniform or flat tax levy vary according to the district's property valuation, as follows:

                              Property Tax Fund – Based on $5.40 Uniform Tax Rate

Uniform Tax Levy of $5.40 per Thousand

$3,780,000

$2,160,000

$540,000

Over the years, the “ceiling” of the formula for state-aid has increased, and today it is calculated on 87.5% of the district's total education cost. Therefore, for each of the three school districts in this illustration, this amounts to $5,250,000. (87.5% x $6,000,000). The amount of state aid is calculated by subtracting the amount raised through the Uniform Tax Levy from the “ceiling” under the school foundation formula for the district.

                                                    Funds provided through State-Aid

$5,250,000 – Uniform Tax Levy Amount

$1,470,000

$3,090,000

$4,710,000

The total amount of funding provided by the school foundation formula is equal, or the same amount of $5,250,000, for each of the three hypothetical school districts, but the amounts of property tax and state-aid vary according to property valuation. The foundation formula ceiling of $5,250,000 represents 87.5% of the total cost of education for each of these school districts. The remaining balance of the total education cost ($6,000,000 x 12.5%) is the same for each district.

                         Additional Tax Fund Amount – 12.5% of District's Total Education Cost

Remaining 12.5% of district's education costs.

$750,000

$750,000

$750,000

The combined amount which has to be paid through property taxes for each school district:

                                                                     Total Property Tax

Uniform Tax Fund + Additional Tax Fund

$4,530,000

$2,910,000

$1,290,000

The tax rate to pay for these funds is calculated by dividing the district's total tax fund by the district's taxable property valuation. The tax rate is based on a per thousand dollars of property valuation.

                                                                         Tax Rates

Property Tax Rate per $1,000 tax valuation

$6.21

$7.275

$12.90

These tax rates represent only the rates that are necessary to raise the required funds required under the school foundation formula. There are additional property taxes for funds or levies such as the Instruction Support Levy, Management Fund Levy, the Physical Plant Equipment Levy, etc. All these additional funds add to the tax rates.

In this illustration, it is evident that even with a large proportion of state-aid, the amount of tax paid by property owners in a poorer school district is at a much higher tax rate than the rate paid by property owners in a richer school district. The reference to a “rich” school district is in terms of a high property valuation for the district. For example, the Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont school district would be considered a rich school district for its size because of the high property value of the industry located within the district. Private property owners certainly benefit from having a large industrial or commercial tax base within their school district. For example, a private property owner of a house in a “poor” district will pay a much higher tax rate than a property owner in a “rich” district for a house of the same value.

So, in summary, inequities and disparities in funding still exist between school districts even with the present school foundation formula.

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************** The school foundation formula is much more complex than the skeletal formula used in the above illustration. This will be discussed in more detail in the next posting.

                                   Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont Community School District Budget Summary

                                                                       Fiscal Year 2012-2013

                                                                    Revenues & Total Resources

Budget Item	2013	Re-est. 2012	Actual 2011	Avg. % 11-   13	11-13 Difference  Actual %	11-12 Difference  Actual %	12.13 Difference Actual %
1. Taxes Levied on Property	3,761,799	4,280,720	4,279,369	-6.20%	-517,570 -12.09%	1,351 0.03%	-518,921 -12.12%
2. Utility Replacement Excise Tax	690,085	752,200	751,483	-4.20%	-61,398 -8.17%	717 0.10%	-62,115 -8.26%
3. Income Surtaxes	302,356	316,770	316,749	2.30%	-14,393-4.54%	21 0.01%	-14,414-4.55%
4. Tuition & Transportation Received	1,100,000	1,100,000	1,026,003		73,997 7.21%	73,997 7.21%	0 0.00%
5. Earnings on Investments	60,600	38,600	37,328		23,272 62.34%	1,272 3.41%	22,000 56.99%
6. Nutrition Program Sales	215,000	209,000	208,614		6,386 3.06%	386 0.19%	6,000 2.87%
7. Student Activities and Sales	328,000	300,000	297,388		30,612 10.29%	2,612 0.88%	28,000 9.33%
8. Other Revenues from Local Sources	1,463,820	1,292,840	1,282,262		181,558 14.16%	10,578 0.82%	170,980 13.23%
9. Revenue from Intermediary Sources	0	0	0
10. State Foundation Aid	4,086,499	3895000	3,719,737		366,762 9.86%	175,263 4.71%	191,499 4.92%
11. Instruction Support State Aid	0	10,000	9,954		-9,954 100.00%	46 0.46%	-10,000 100.00%
12. Other State Sources	100250	81,250	80,254		19,996 24.92%	996 1.24%	19,000 23.38%
13. ARRA Fiscal Stabilization	0	0	89,244		-89,244 100.00%	-89,244 100.00%	0 0.00%
14. Title I Grants	150,000	126,000	126,120		23,880 18.93%	-120 -0.10%	24,000 19.05%
15. Other Federal Sources	611,500	611,500	606,500		5,000 0.82%	5,000 0.82%	0 0.00%
16. Total Revenues	12,869,909	13,013,880	12,831,005		38,904 0.30%	182,875 1.43%	143,971 -1.11%
17. General Long-Term Debt Proceeds	0	0	0
18. Transfers In	200,000	206,000	208,799		-8,799 -4.21%	-2,799 -1,34%	-6,000 -2.91%
19. Proceeds of Fixed Assets Dispositions	0	0	0
20. Total Revenues & Other Sources	13,069,909	13,219,880	13,039,804		30,105 0.23%	180,076 1.38%	-149,971 -1.13%
21. Beginning Fund Balance	3,130,352	4,101,725	3,971,029		-840,677 -21.17%	130,696 3.29%	-971,373 -23.68%
22. Total Resources	16,200,261	17,321,605	17,010,833		-810,572 -4.76%	310,772 1.83%	1,121,344 -6.47%

Property Tax Rate per $1,000 taxable valuation = $10.74781

                          Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont  Community School District Budget Summary

                                                        Fiscal Year 2012-2013

                                                 Expenditures and Total Requirements

Budget Item	2013	Re-est. 2012	Actual 2011	Avg. % 11-13	11-13 Difference Actual %	11-12 Difference Actual %	12.13 Difference Actual %
23. *Instruction	7,743,000	7,357,053	6,854,357	6.3%	888,643 12.96 %	502,696 7.33%	385,947 5.25%
24. Student Support Services	300,000	175,000	150,689		149,311 99.09%	24,311 16.13%	125,000 71.43%
25. Instructional Staff Support Services	510,000	490,000	446,131		63,869 14.32%	43,869 9.83%	20,000 4.08%
26. General Administration	415,000	380,000	361,005		53,995 14.96%	18,995 5.25%	35,000 9.21%
27. Building Administration	627,000	632,000	552,689		74,311 13.45%	79,311 14.35%	-5,000 -0.79%
28. Business Administration	501,200	480,700	361,963		139,237 38.47%	118,737 32.08%	20,500 4.26%
29. Plant Operations and Maintenance	1,075,000	975,000	854,185		220,815 25.85%	120,815 14.14%	100,000 10.26%
30. Student Transportation	1,045,000	944,500	704,040		340,960 48.43%	240,460 34.15%	100,500 10.64%
31. This row is intentionally left blank	0	0	0
31A.Total Support Services (lines 24-31)	4,473,200	4,077,200	3,430,702	14.2%	1,042,498 30.39%	646,498 18.84%	396,000 9.71%
32. *Non-instructional Programs	900,000	680,000	638,788	18.7%	261,212 40.89%	41,212 6.45%	220,000 32.35%
33. Facilities Acquisition and Construction	840,000	1,300,000	1,203,225		-363,225 -30.19%	96,775 8.04%	-460,000 -35.38%
34. Debt Services	200,000	206,000	204,724		-4,724 -2.31%	1,276 0.62%	-6,000 -2.91%
35. AEA Support – Direct to AEA	349,273	365,000	365,939		-16,666 -4.55%	-939 -0.26 %	-15,727 -4.31%
35A Total Other Expenditures (lines 33-35)	1,389,273	1,871,000	1,773,888	-11.5%	-384,615 -21.68%	97,112 5.47%	-481,727 -25.75%
36. Total Expenditures	14,505,473	13,985,253	12,697,735		1,807,738 14.24%	1,287518 10.14%	520,220 3.72%
37. Other Financing Uses: Transfers Out	210,000	206,000	211,373		-1,373 -0.65%	-5,373 -2.54%	4,000 1,94%
38. Total Expenditures and Other Uses	14,715,473	14,191,253	12,909,108		1,806,365 13.99%	1,282,145 9.93%	524,220 3.69%
39. Ending Fund Balance	1,484,788	3,130,352	4,101,725		2,616,937 -63.80%	-971,373 -23.68%	1,645,564 -52.57
40. Total Requirements	16,200,261	17,321,605	17,010,833		-810,572 -4.77%	310,772 1.83%	1,121,344 -6.47%

Iowa Department of Education

Student Achievement, Accountability and

Professional Development Annual Report

*************************************
2009/10 & 2010/11 Biennium Adequate Yearly Progress Report

Percentage of Students Proficient at Fourth Grade Level For Reading and Math
 

School District	Grade 4 Reading		School District	Grade 4 Math
Fremont	65.4		Ottumwa	72.7
North Mahaska	73.4		Cardinal	73.6
Ottumwa	74		Moravia	75
Oskaloosa	74.9		Fremont	75.9
Eddyville-Blakesburg	75.2		Oskaloosa	77.6
Moravia	75.5		North Mahaska	78.5
Centerville	76.3		Eddyville-Blakesburg	79.8
Cardinal	77.8		Fairfield	80
Clarke	79.1		Albia	80.6
Twin Cedars	80.9		Clarke	80.8
Davis County	83.1		Davis County	81.2
Fairfield	83.3		Centerville	82.8
Albia	83.3		Chariton	84.8
Chariton	89.9		Twin Cedars	89.4
Moulton-Udell	90.9		Pella	92.4
Pella	92.4		Pekin	95.8
Pekin	95.8		Moulton-Udell	100

Information from January 2012

Iowa Department of Education

Student Achievement, Accountability and

Professional Development Annual Report

******************************************************
2009/10 & 2010/11 Biennium Adequate Yearly Progress Report

Percentage of Students Proficient at Eighth Grade Level For Reading and Math

School District	Grade 8 Reading		School District	Grade 8 Math
Moulton-Udell	60.9		Cardinal	62.5
Ottumwa	65.3		Ottumwa	69.5
Fremont	70		Fremont	70
Chariton	70		Albia	70.2
Eddyville-Blakesburg	70.8		Centerville	70.8
Davis County	71		Eddyville-Blakesburg	72.7
North Mahaska	71.8		Moravia	72.7
Oskaloosa	72.5		Davis County	73.9
Clarke	73.1		North Mahaska	74.4
Pekin	74.7		Fairfield	75.9
Cardinal	75		Chariton	76.2
Centerville	75		Moulton-Udell	78.3
Fairfield	75.6		Oskaloosa	79.4
Albia	76		Pekin	81.1
Moravia	84.1		Clarke	82.5
Twin Cedars	84.6		Twin Cedars	84.4
Pella	88.8		Pella	84.7