Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Senate Amendments to SB 213

Senate Amendments to SB 213

Ratings: (0)|Views: 447 |Likes:
This document outlines the substantive changes to SB 213. Note that this list is not exhaustive, as it does not include technical amendments.
This document outlines the substantive changes to SB 213. Note that this list is not exhaustive, as it does not include technical amendments.

More info:

Published by: Senator Mike Johnston on Apr 02, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
SB 213:
Colorado’s Commitment
 Building a World-Class Education System
Sens. Johnston, Heath & Rep. Hamner
_______________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO SB 213
1.
 
Amendment L.016 (Senator Johnston): Creation of Hold Harmless Funding for Districts thatCould Experience a Loss in State Funding
For any district that could see a potential loss in state funding after calculation of the new school financeformula, the state will hold the district harmless. The calculation of the hold harmless is as follows:Hold Harmless = (14-15 State Funding
 –
Calculated State Funding) + (0.02(Current Calculated TotalProgram + Current Teacher & Leadership Investment))This formula is best explained in two steps: The formula in the first set of parentheses ensures that thedistrict will not lose any state funding by giving the district the difference between (a) its state fundingunder the old act and (b) the funding the district is calculated to get under the new act.
The formula in the second set of parentheses ensures that the district will be “held positive” (i.e., it will
receive more state funding that it did under the old act). To calculate the hold positive, the state willfirst
add the district’s calculated total program in the current year to the district’s current Teacher &
Leadership Investment. Next, the state will multiply that amount by 2 percent.
As the district’scalculated total program and Teacher & Leadership Investment grow over time, so will this “
hold
positive” amount of funding.
 
2.
 
Amendment L.022 (Senator Johnston)
:
Clarifying Special Education Maintenance of Effort
A
mendment 22 clarifies that the additional SPED funding does not constitute “additional funding” that
would trigger additional maintenance of effort requirements at the federal level.
3.
 
Amendment L.045 (Senator Johnston, Technical Amendment): Reinserting Excess CostsLanguage into the Special Education Section
This amendment reinserts language into the special education section of SB 213 that permits districtsthat enroll out of district students with disabilities to receive funding for these students, and contract
with the students’ districts of residence to re
ceive tuition payments.Note that this is existing law mistakenly left out of the introduced bill.
4.
 
Amendment L.046 (Senators Todd and Hudak): Creation of SPED Investment Plan,Modification o
f Supplemental (“Floor”) Funding
, and Teaching and Leadership InvestmentRefinancing
 
This amendment makes three important changes to SB 213. First, it brings SPED funding to the forefrontof the SB 213 effort, retaining the $80 million investment in Tier B SPED funding in year one of fullimplementation, and requiring that as tax receipts from the ballot grow, this growth is first placed indoubling the size of the Tier A SPED allocation from $1250 to $2500. This investment plan is placed inthe actual section of SPED statute in order to put the investment on par with investments made in at-risk students and English language learners.Second, it modifies the floor funding amendment made to SB 213 in committee (L.034) that instituted afloor of funding equivalent to the statewide average of total program funding per pupil. L.034 had theeffect of increasing the fiscal note on SB 213 by close to $300 million, without specifying how the $300million should be financed.L.046 reduces the floor to 95% of the statewide average total program funding per pupil, and financesthe floor funding through a proportionate reduction in the Teaching and Leadership Investment acrossall districts, bringing the TLI amount down to $441 dollars/pupil. This has the effect of narrowing thespread between per pupil increases under SB 213, requiring districts with higher per pupil increases togive up some of their increase to finance floor funding.
For this reason, L.046’s final change requires that future increases in the Teaching and Leadership
Investment first go to non-floor funded districts which had to give up some of their proposed per pupilincrease to finance floor funding. Once these districts have received an increase in TLI up to $600/pupil,
L.046 provides for an increase in floor funded districts’ TLI up to $600, and then raises all districts’ TLI
proportionally following, as tax receipts from the ballot initiative increase over time.
5.
 
Amendment L.048-L.049 (Senator Johnston): Removing Revocation of Exclusive CharteringAuthority if Districts Do Not Share Future Mill Levy Overrides with Charter Schools,Substituting Enhanced Reporting Requirements around Sharing of Mill Levy Override Dollars,
and Creating a “
Charter School
Equity Fund”
 
L.048 brokers a compromise by removing the possibility of revocation of exclusive chartering authority if districts do not share future mill levy override dollars with charter schools, and instead (a) institutes newrequirements around reporting sharing of mill levy override dollars, and (b) creates a state-financedCharter School Equity Fund for district charter schools.The new reporting requirements will require districts to indicate what portion of override dollars areshared with district charter schools on an annual basis. This reporting will bring to public attention theagreements reached between districts and charters surrounding sharing of override dollars, but willleave to districts and charters the freedom of negotiation around what amounts should be shared, andwhy.The Charter School Equity Fund enables district charters to achieve some parity with existing districtoverride revenues, but does so by way of a state funding stream that does not require redistribution of locally raised dollars and does not
affect districts’ exclusive chartering authority.
6.
 
Amendment L.050: (Senator Johnston) Removing Default Requirement that Districts Allocate
Individual Charter’s SPED Dollars to Individual Charter School, and Substituting Itemized
Reporting of SPED Costs and Expenditures Relative to District Charter Schools

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->