Does Every Student Cost the Same?

I recently heard a Senator proclaim quite pompously that 'people just don't understand how we fund education.'  It made me want to say, some Legislator's don't understand how we fund education either!  Last week @UtahTeacher posted an excellent overview on education funding (here), so in this post I would like to examine a specific education funding policy that falls prey to a basic fallacy.

Most Utahns have heard of the WPU or Weighted Pupil Unit.  The WPU is a way money is equally distributed to school districts and charter schools, but it is not the amount it costs to educate a student for one year.  For the 2011-2012 school year, the WPU in Utah is $2,816 (source).  The per pupil spending is actually closer to $6,600 though.  But does it cost the same to educate every student?  Absolutely not!  Obviously students who received specialized services (ELL, Resource, Accelerated etc.) cost more, but students who are 'mainstream' cost different amounts as well.  In high school, a student who takes a schedule heavy with art classes costs a different amount than a student who takes shop.  If a student must retake a class, there is a cost associated with that.  The bottom line is this: any proposal that attaches money specifically to a student is based on the false premise that students are equal and the same.
This year there are a few bills based on that premise, I will highlight the most egregious:

H.B. 123 Education Savings Accounts by Rep. Dougall

This bill would give 9th-12th graders an education savings account to pay for their classes and fees; classes could be taken at charter schools, traditional public schools, or in online classes from a public or private provider.  Students would receive $6,400 the first year.  Even traditional public schools would then charge the student's account to take classes.  If a student would like to take a more expensive applied technology class, they may have to pay out of pocket for their math if their course loads exceeds the $6,400.  At the end of the year any money remaining in the account would carry over.  If the student graduated with a balance they could use the money for colleges in Utah.  If a student has not earned a diploma after four years, and has no more money remaining, they will have to pay for their own classes to complete their high school diploma.  It will cost the state over $17 million dollars the first year, and $2 million in ongoing funds to maintain the financial program it will require.  There is no mention in the bill how this will work for students with special needs.  It is conceivable to imagine high schools offering less sports, clubs and classes outside those required if this law takes effect.  Rep. Dougall admitted to the State School Board that he realized it cost a different amount to educate every student, but he still is making a proposal that funds every student the same way.

I have often heard it argued that we need to fund students and not systems.  And to a point I agree.  But there is an importance in systems.  It is through systems that schools can provide specialized services, it is through systems that high school students can enjoy sports, student government, proms and clubs.  Systems provide transportation and are vital in rural areas of the state.  If we take funding students to the extreme, as Rep. Dougall's proposal does, it disregards and will eventually decimate the systems that we value.

S.B. 151 Student Opportunity Scholarships

Sen. Stephenson

Bill: S.B. 151 Student Opportunity Scholarships

Sponsor: Sen. Stephenson

This bill provides for nonrefundable tax credits for donations made to a scholarship organization to be used for scholarships for a qualifying student to attend a private school.

Because the bill creates an entirely new program, I have simple outlined the bill and its provisions below.  I hope in this way to make it completely understandable.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Student Eligibility

To Qualify for a Scholarship

            The student’s parents/guardians must reside in Utah

            The Student shall be between the ages of 5 and 19

            The Student shall meet ONE or more of the following criteria

·         The Student’s parents had an annual income of less than 200% of income eligibility guidelines to qualify for reduced price meals

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/iegs/IEGs11-12.pdf

USDA Free & Reduced Lunch eligibility for a family of 5 is $48,415)

·         The Student while in grades 1-2 must score below expected reading level on a reading assessment administered at the end of the year       

·         The Student while in grades 3-11 must score below the proficient level on a statewide assessment of language arts, math, science OR writing

·         The Student’s school of residence has received an F grade for 2 consecutive years

·         The Student received a scholarship the previous year

            The Student may not be receiving the Carson Smith Scholarship for Students with Special Needs

            Parents submit an application for their student to a scholarship organization

Scholarship Organizations

Must be organized & managed under the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act.

Scholarships must be monetary.

Scholarship organization shall award scholarships to students who meet the requirements to pay for tuition & fees for an eligible private school.

Scholarships shall be awarded on a first come, first serve basis.

Scholarships organizations shall give priority to a student who received a scholarship the previous year.

Students may attend ANY eligible private school & transfer scholarship money during the year to other eligible schools – organization may not restrict or reserve scholarships for a particular school or provide scholarships to schools with paid staff or board members related or in common with organization.

Must expend at least 90% of the revenue from state for the scholarship (10% may go to administration).

75% of state revenue must be spent in the same year; only 25% can carry over to next year then MUST be spent or will be returned to the state Education Fund.

Shall provide the State Tax Commission an annual audit conducted by an independent CPA.

Compile for the State Tax Commission a yearly report on scholarship awards.

Scholarships

The maximum amount organization may award in 2012-2013 school year must be the lesser of: $5,500 or the amount of the private school’s tuition and fees.

After 2012-13 school year the amount will be adjusted the same percentage as the WPU.

Scholarships may be for full or partial amounts.

A student may receive partial scholarships from 2 or more organizations provided the total does not exceed the maximum allowed.

Scholarship money will be mailed from the organization to the school in the parent’s name; parents must endorse the checks before they can be deposited.

Eligible Donation

A person makes to a scholarship organization a monetary donation.

That person does not designate for the benefit of a particular student.

With respect to which the person does not claim an exemption or tax credit or make a deduction or subtraction on the person’s state or federal income tax return or receive property or a service in turn for the donation.

Donor receives a nonrefundable tax credit for donation.

State Tax Commission

In 2012, the amount allocated for this program may not exceed $5,000,000 in tax credit.

Every year, the allocation will increase by 20%.

Private Schools

To be eligible to enroll scholarship students must:

            Have an independent audit performed to ensure working capital

            Comply with antidiscrimination provisions

            Meet state & local health and safety laws & codes

            Disclose to parents special need services provided to students, and the costs of those services

            Annually assess the achievement of each student by administering a norm-referenced test scored by an independent party & report the results to the parents

            Teachers must hold baccalaureate or higher degrees OR have specials skills, knowledge or expertise that qualifies them to instruct subjects taught

            Conduct criminal background checks on school personnel

The following schools are NOT eligible to enroll scholarship students:

            Those having fewer than 40 students

            Those that operate in residence

            Those that encourage illegal conduct

            Or a residential treatment facility licensed by the state

The State Board of Education shall approve a private school’s application to enroll scholarship students if they meet the eligibility requirements & shall make public a list of eligible private schools.

Whew! You made it to the end!  There will be significant discussion to this bill, it is one that if passed will have a great impact on the future of public education in Utah.  Pay attention - and I'll try and keep you updated as the bill moves through the process.


**Note: This post is in no way an endorsement of S.B. 151, it is simply an outline of the provisions.  Before any meaningful dialogue can take place on this bill, it must first be understood.  Look for continuing conversation and concerns in upcoming posts.

H.B. 69 Insurance Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorders by Rep. Menlove

Rep. Menlove

Bill: H.B. 69 Insurance Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorders

Sponsor: Rep. Menlove

Post written by Brandy, a Utah Mom of 3

We have a beautiful, sweet boy named Dax who is 21 months old. We have been worried about his development over the last nine months and recently our pediatrician confirmed our fears that he probably has autism.

We were devastated, but thankful that we had purchased health insurance, because we knew that it would be a long and expensive road.  So we started trying to research the therapies that would be best to help our son.  Shockingly, we discovered that most of the effective treatments for autism would not be covered by our insurance, or any insurance policy in Utah. We would be forced to ruin ourselves financially to get the most effective therapies, or choose not to get the help our son needs. 

We thought of a third option, which was to have my husband abandon his career and move to another state for treatment.  The majority of states have laws that prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against patients with autism, but not Utah.

Here are some important facts about autism that you might not know. We didn’t know, until now…

1.     Autism is a treatable developmental disorder whose symptoms can be significantly improved, possibly eliminated.

2.     Statistically, if you have 3 kids, you have around a 1 in 35 chance of one of them having an autism spectrum disorder.

3.     Intense Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) Therapy (25-40 hours per week) is one of the most scientifically supported and effective treatments of Autism available.

4.     ABA therapy usually costs around $30,000-50,000 per year. On average, 50% of young children who receive 2 years of intensive ABA therapy do not need special education in school by first grade and are mostly indistinguishable from their peers afterwards. Most of the other 50% make great strides in achieving more normal communication and emotional responses.

The Autism Alliance of Michigan, which is also pursuing autism anti-discrimination legislation this year has prepared a summary of extensive research done regarding Autism’s cost to society and has prepared a very helpful document to illustrate the problem:

http://www.midmichiganautism.org/images/Michigan's%20Autism%20Reform%20Legislation%20August%202011.pdf

Those who do not support the legislation generally make the following arguments:

1.     “I can’t support mandates” or “this is socialism” The estimated cost of an untreated autistic patient in terms of future welfare payments, special education, and other social costs is close to $3,700,000.  So, treating the problem, rather than ignoring the problem, will save the taxpayers millions of dollars. When the insurance companies don’t cover therapies, the parents are usually unable to pay for the therapies themselves.  Many are not adequately treated, so the taxpayers end up paying for a lot of special education and welfare that could have been avoided.

2.     “Insurance costs will skyrocket” Actuarial studies do not support this statement.  Most studies show that initial premium increases for similar legislation are below 1%.

3.     “Therapies are experimental” This is not true. Therapies are effective, and are supported by science, the Surgeon General, the National Research Council and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

4.     “The schools already provide these services” Schools try to accommodate disabilities in the course of educating children with autism.  Schools do not, cannot, and, in my opinion, should not be tasked with treating the disabling condition, particularly when a person has already paid to have their medical costs covered by a health insurance company.  The schools simply do not have the resources or expertise.

Statistically, someone in your family is going to need treatment for autism. When that happens, it will likely be the most stressful and devastating situation you have ever faced.

Our son is such a wonderful, happy little boy, and we know that he is in there, somewhere. But without support, this bill will fail and we may not ever be able to know what our son could have become.  Please support this bill, not just for our sake, but also for the sake of all the children not getting the treatment they need, for the sake of your family, and for the sake of the Utah taxpayers.

**Note - There is concern that if S.B. 138 Health Insurance Mandate Accountability Amendments from Sen. Weiler passes, it will make H.B. 69 very difficult.  To learn more follow Autism Votes, link found here.
Sen. Weiler has outlined what S.B. 138 does, and its relationship to H.B. 69 here. 

S.B. 30 Administrative Rules Reauthorization by Sen. Stephenson

Sen. Stephenson

Bill: S.B. 30 Administrative Rules Reauthorization
Sponsor: Sen. Stephenson

This bill appears harmless.  S.B. 30 Administrative Rules Reauthorization only has a few lines, here they are:

All rules of Utah state agencies are reauthorized except for the following:
(1) R477-6-5, Human Resource Management, Administration, Compensation,
  Incentive Awards; and
  (2) R277-419-5 (E-Exceptions), Education, Administration, Pupil Accounting, Student Membership
Effective Date: If approved by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, this bill takes effect on May 1, 2012

With this bill Sen. Stephenson has dealt a potentially devastating blow to secondary education in Utah.  As many Utahns are aware, high schools are able to count students who are attending religious instruction (seminary), concurrent enrollment, applied technology classes, and other individual learning activities consistent with the student's SEOP toward their school's membership.  This bill will deauthorize that funding, it is less money for schools.  It is fair for the Legislature to have the discussion on how these students who are receiving instruction outside of the school should be funded, but there was no discussion.  This bill was heard in the Administrative Rules Review Committee prior to the session, and because it passed that committee was place straight on to the Senate's calendar.  It is already through the Senate!

According to the State Office of Education: LEAs [an LEA is a school district or charter school] having many students participating in affected varieties of release-time will see both an increase and a decrease in funding, with the decrease being larger in value so as to create an overall fall in funding among these LEAs, with no associated change in costs (from USOE Bill Impact statement).


If you are concerned about the ramifications of this bill, or even simply feel that this bill deserves to be vetted and discussed, please contact both your Senator - the Senate it able to recall a bill - and your Representative in the House.  The link to learn who your Senator/Representatives are can be found on the right.

H.B. 59 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act - Liquor Revenues for Public Education by Rep. Bird

Rep. Bird

Bill: H.B. 59 Alcoholic Beverage Control Act - Liquor Revenues for Public Education
Sponsor: Rep. Bird

Rep. Bird has an idea on how to get more money to schools, without raising taxes.  He is simply changing the way current state revenue is distributed.  H.B. 59 would change the distribution of alcohol revenue, by earmarking 10% of the total gross revenue the state earns from the sell of alcohol for public education.  This bill would put $31 million dollars more a year into our public schools.  The money, currently deposited in the general fund, would instead be sent directly to local school districts and charter schools.  Unlike some monies currently received by districts/charter schools, it would not have to be used for only specific expenses, this money would be available for: programs, raises for teachers, reducing class sizes, building expenses, whatever the district/charter school deemed most important.  The $31 million would be divided, the first 10% would be distributed equally among districts/charter schools, and the remaining 90% would be distributed per-pupil.  Some very rough calculations:

There are about 110 districts/charter schools in Utah.
That would mean each entity would receive $28,000.
Additionally there are about 500,000 students attending public school in Utah, so per pupil, it would be about $55.
Davis School District would then receive an estimated: $3.3 million dollars.
American Preparatory Academy with 570 students would receive: $59,350.
(All numbers are rough estimates, figures taken from USOE's school profiles)

This past year the Utah Legislature earmarked millions of dollars to roads and infrastructure.  Rep. Bird is asking for a similar (actually a lesser) commitment to be made to public education.  Moving money from the general fund does mean somewhere else something will have to be cut.  The general fund pays for all state government with the exception of education.  With all the scandal the DABC (Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control) has seen this past year, it is doubtful that it will exist in its current state by the end of the session.  By passing the bill to earmark revenue from alcohol sales THIS YEAR, the precedent will be in place for alcohol revenues generated by the state to be put toward education.  After this year, the window of opportunity to earmark those funds may have passed.

How to Contact Your Legislator

The session is underway; here are a few hints to keep in mind when contacting your Senator or Representative.

Email Tips
The subject line of your email is vital.  Make it specific.  Include the bill you are writing about, how you would like your legislator to vote, your address, and if you are a delegate (do not say you are a delegate if you are not one).  For example:

Support HB 69 Autism Bill - Republican/Democratic Delegate - Constituent from District #__ -  Address

In the body of your email be straight to the point.  Bullet points are effective.  Hit key reasons the legislator should support/oppose the bill.  Fact based reasons are most influential; include links to more information if possible.  State how the legislation will impact their constituents.  Conclude your email with a statement of appreciation.  Always sign your emails with your name, street address, email and phone number.

Telephone Tips
It may seem intimidating to call your legislator on the phone, but if you feel passionate about a bill, it is a lot more effective than an email.  Legislators receive hundreds and hundreds of emails.  They receive a lot less phone calls from their constituents.  Plan on a brief conversation, and have your notes on the points you would like to make in front of you.  Nothing is more annoying than getting off the phone and realizing you forgot to bring up your most effective argument.  A phone conversation is two way, listen as much as you talk.  Often times I have not agreed with my legislators, but it has still been a good discussion on an issue that benefited both of us.

Up at the Capitol Tips
It shows you really care if you show up.  If you feel strongly about a bill, drive up to the Capitol and address your legislator in person.  This is easily done.  If legislators are on the floor, the Sargent in Arms (the guys in the green coats) sitting outside the chambers can help you fill out a note to be taken in to your legislator.  You may have to wait a minute, just munch on some taffy while you wait and marvel at the number of lobbyists hanging out near you.  Most legislators will come out to talk as soon as they are available if they know a constituent is waiting to meet with them.  Again, be brief and hit your strongest points.  Have your points typed up and give them a copy.  Include on your talking points sheet your name, address and phone number.  Remember, facts usually outweigh emotional argument - is the law factually sound, common sense, and how will it affect constituents in your district.  If legislators are in committee, you will probably need to wait until the meeting is through.  All legislators also have offices, check their offices if you are trying to hunt them down.  To find out where your legislator's office is, ask either the House or Senate secretaries located near the respective chambers.

Remember, legislators are there to represent YOU, and they can do that best when they understand how YOU feel.

To find your legislator, check here.

S.B. 117 Publication of Education Fund Revenue Reductions - Sen. McAdams

Sen. McAdams

Bill: S.B. 117

Sponsor: Sen. McAdams

S.B. 117 is a simple concept, but one that could have a profound effect.  Sen. McAdams has envisioned a prominent link on the home page of the Utah Legislature which would take viewers to a report of all proposed legislation which will reduce the revenue deposited into the state's education fund.  The published report would be updated at least weekly during the session as bills are introduced and amended, and daily the last week of the session as budget bills are passed.  In an email, Sen. McAdams explained:

I'm concerned that legislators too quickly spend education fund dollars without regard to whether it is an appropriate use of education funds. I think both parties are equally guilty of this practice and I want the legislature to pause before expending education dollars for purposes that do not advance education goals. For example, take a bill that would create a renewable energy tax credit to encourage the development of solar energy. I support that goal. However, such a tax credit would reduce corporate income tax collections and therefore reduce the amount of revenue going to the education fund. I believe renewable energy incentives are good policy. But, are they good education policy? I think these tax incentives are irrelevant to education policy and should probably be funded out of the state general fund and not out of the education fund. In this example, we could propose an amendment to the bill that would create the renewable energy tax credit and then specify that revenue reductions due to the tax credit from the education fund will be replaced by the general fund. Renewable energy development is good general policy, but has nothing to do with education policy. I don't think the education system should pay for it, but the general fund should.

That's the most innocent example. There are numerous other instances each session where bills are passed that take revenue out of the education fund to pay for somebody's pet issue. Remember last year when the legislature passed a bill to make gold coins a form of legal currency? Well, that bill also amounted to an income tax cut of about $500,000 per year (H.B. 317). I voted against that bill, but for those who felt that was a good bill then it should have been paid for from the state general fund and not from the state education fund.

I'd like to find a way in the future to enact some more rigorous protections for the state education fund, but for now I'm starting with public notice of how our education funds are being spent and I hope the public and the education community will cry foul if bills spend education dollars for purposes that are not related to education.

Simple concept, profound effect. 

H.B. 62 Provisions Regarding School Supplies by Rep. Powell

Rep. Powell

Bill: H.B. 62 Provisions Regarding School Supplies
Sponsor: Rep. Powell

For years Rep. Powell has been pushing for a way for elementary schools to be allowed to ask parents, if they are able, to donate school supplies (2011 bill).  The Utah Constitution states: Public elementary and secondary schools shall be free, except the Legislature may authorize the imposition of fees in the secondary schools (Art X, Sec 2).  Due to this statement, Powell had been attempting to amend to the Utah Constitution, which has proven unpopular.  This year he seems to have found a way to accomplish his means without amending the Constitution.  H.B. 62 will allow local schools to decide if they would like to create a list of supplies used during a regular day for parents to donate.  The list MUST contain the following language:

Notice: The items on this list are optional.  No elementary school student may be required to bring any of these supplies to school.  This list is compiled solely to provide information to parents or guardians who wish to voluntarily furnish supplies for student use.  Equivalent supplies will be furnished by the school to all students free of charge as necessary.

 H.B. 62 should be able to garner more support this year than in sessions past now that it will not require a constitutional change; the question this year will be if it can be done with a simple school board rule or if there must be language in statute.

H.B. 199 Elimination of Daylight Saving Time - Rep. Nielson

Rep. Nielson

Bill: H.B. 199 Elimination of Daylight Saving Time
Sponsor: Rep. Nielson

The idea for Utah to not participate in Daylight Savings Time is far from new.  Last session Rep. Wilcox ran H.B. 114, the Utah Time Standardization Act, which would have placed Utah on Mountain Standard Time the entire year.  Rep. Wilcox's bill was never given a committee hearing.  The year before that it was Rep. Sumsion who carried the charge to rid Utah of Daylight Savings Time, his bill failed in committee. Rep. Nielson is carrying basically the same bill this session, proposing Utahns never spring forward or fall back and instead stay firmly in Mountain Standard Time.  We'll see if he fares better than his predecessors.

This bill has received quite a bit of media attention, read coverage from: Deseret News, The Herald Journal, and The Salt Lake Tribune.

H.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution on Legislator Eligibiligy by Rep. Dougall

Rep. Dougall

Bill: H.J.R. 10 Joint Resolution on Legislator Eligibility
Sponsor: Rep. Dougall

There has been a trend in Utah these past few years started by Congressman Chaffetz: candidates are lining up to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in districts where they DO NOT LIVE.  According to the The Salt Lake Tribune, there are SIX candidates running for Utah's U.S. Congressional seats from outside of the district where they currently live.  Three of those candidates plan on moving into the district where they are running, but the other three have no such plans.  Rep. Dougall would like to extend the opportunity to state legislators to run in the district of their choice.  H.J.R. 10 would amend the Utah Constitution to eliminate the requirement that a legislator must run in the district where they reside.  As always, amendments to the Utah Constitution must pass both bodies of the Legislature, be signed by the Governor and then approved by a majority of Utah voters.

A few questions to ask:
Are we comfortable with politicians choosing their constituents?
Are we comfortable with an urban legislator representing a rural district? Or vice versa?
Are we comfortable with special interest groups, both inside and outside the state, with financial resources researching Utah demographics and then running their candidate in the district where they feel they can win so they have representation in the Utah Legislature?
Is there an advantage to having your elected official live within your district?

In Utah, a member of the House of Representatives has about 36,500 constituents in their district.  The districts are small enough many people know their Representative; they have met them at their school or had their kids on the same soccer team, they work with their family members or worship at the same church.  There is value for both the constituent and the elected official in living within the district they represent.  Rep. Dougall is asking if there is greater value in having a candidate select the constituents who they feel they represent best.

This is one I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on.