I 2039 LIBRARY Michigan mate University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS: FUNDING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION presented by MARK D. ROLLANDINI has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD. degree in K-12 Educational Administration :24 Arm Major Professor’s Signature C; /I /0 7 —D T I Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer ..—.—.—.—.—.- —.__ .. -—.-.—.—V-..o .— —.—;—. PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K:/PrqlAcc&PrelelRC/DateDue.indd MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS: FUNDING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION BY Mark D. Rollandini A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY K-12 Educational Administration 2009 ABSTRACT MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS: FUNDING AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION By Mark D. Rollandini Educational Service Agencies (ESAs) across the United States have historically provided programs and services to local districts in an effort to increase educational achievement for students and the efficiency of local schools. Intermediate School Districts (ISDs), Michigan’s unique brand of ESA, are no different. They are there to serve the needs of local districts with everything from media services to professional development for teachers. This paper examines the history of ESAs, the services they provide and evidence on their performance around the United States. The study's empirical research focuses on an evaluation of the fiscal resources and expenditures of Michigan’s lSDs. As state and federal requirements for local schools grow, ISDs are being called upon to assist them in meeting these requirements. This dissertation examines the 2005-06 financial reports of all Michigan lSDs to discern whether or not disparities in their resources create inequalities in their capacity to assume new responsibilities. The research also seeks to determine whether fiscal disparities across lSDs correspond to the demographic characteristics or educational need of the ISDs themselves. To H. C. and Martha ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The successful completion of this dissertation would not have been possible had I attempted it on my own. I would first like to thank my wife, Sarah, and the rest of my family, in Michigan and Virginia. Their support and encouragement have helped me more than they will ever know. To the professors of Educational Administration at MSU, I send thanks for the opportunity to study with them, and for their desire to make me think. In this group I would like to specifically thank Dr. Chris Dunbar for encouraging me to start the program and then to ultimately complete this exercise. To Dr. David Arsen, whom I admire and consider one of the brightest stars in the department, I send heartfelt appreciation for his assistance and support even when l was ready to give up. Gratitude also goes to my guidance and dissertation committees who sat through those long meetings and gave me the direction and suggestions that made this a reality. I also want to acknowledge the staff and students of Michigan K-12 public schools, especially those that l have the privilege to work with every day. They test me, teach me, and give me hope for the future. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. vii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ ix INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................................... 3 History ..................................................................................................... 3 Description of ESAs ................................................................................ 8 Description of Services Provided by Michigan lSDs ............................. 12 Performance of ESAs ........................................................................... 15 ESA Funding and Resource Allocation ................................................. 19 CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN ........................................................... 25 Research questions .............................................................................. 25 Data Sources and Description ................................................. ' ............. 2 6 lSD financial accounts ................................................................ 26 ISO revenue data ....................................................................... 27 I80 expenditure data ................................................................. 29 CHAPTER 3 lSD REVENUE ................................................................................................ 32 Statewide lSD Revenue Data ............................................................... 34 Patterns in ISO revenues by ISO characteristic .................................... 40 The highest and lowest revenue lSDs .................................................. 49 Summary .............................................................................................. 54 CHAPTER 4 ISO EXPENDITURE ........................................................................................ 56 Statewide lSD Expenditures by Major Functions .................................. 57 Patterns in ISD Expenditures by lSD characteristic .............................. 62 Summary .............................................................................................. 67 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS ................................................................... 69 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................... 74 State Aid Section and Description for Revenue Received Through Michigan State School Aid APPENDIX B ................................................................................................... 77 Federal Revenue, State Accounting Code, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number and Account Name/Description APPENDIX C ................................................................................................... 82 Sources of revenue into each fund APPENDIX D ................................................................................................... 83 Per-pupil Revenue for Each of the Four Funds for All Michigan lSDs REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 86 vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 ............................................................................................................ 9 Stephens' Typology of Educational Services Agencies Based on Prevailing Patterns of Four Key Characteristics TABLE 2 .......................................................................................................... 33 Inequality in Per-pupil Revenue: Michigan lSDs and Local Districts Using Coefficient of Variation TABLE 3 .......................................................................................................... 34 Total Revenue for Michigan lSDs by Major Funds TABLE 4 .......................................................................................................... 35 Sources of General Fund Revenue TABLE 5 .......................................................................................................... 36 Sources of Special Education Fund Revenue TABLE 6 .......................................................................................................... 37 Sources of Vocational Education Fund Revenue TABLE 7 .......................................................................................................... 38 Sources of Cooperative Education Fund Revenue TABLE 8 .......................................................................................................... 41 Major, Fund Average Revenue by Enrollment Size TABLE 9 .......................................................................................................... 43 Major Fund Average Revenue by Region of the State TABLE 10 ........................................................................................................ 45 Major Fund Revenue in lSDs With More Than 10% of the ISD's Students Attending Schools in Phase 3 or Higher of School Improvement TABLE 11 ........................................................................................................ 48 State and Federal Grants by Total ISD Per-pupil Revenue Quintiles TABLE 12 ........................................................................................................ 50 Source of General Fund Revenue Per-pupil for Top 5 and Bottom 5 General Fund Revenue Per-pupil lSDs TABLE 13 ........................................................................................................ 52 Ten Highest Revenue Per-pupil lSDs by Fund and Four-Fund Total vii TABLE 14 ........................................................................................................ 53 Ten Lowest Revenue Per-pupil lSDs by Fund and Four-Fund Total TABLE 15 ........................................................................................................ 56 Total Expenditure for all Michigan lSDs Per-pupil and as a Percent of Total for General Fund and the three funds specific to lSDs TABLE 16 ........................................................................................................ 57 General Fund Expenditure by Function TABLE 17 ........................................................................................................ 59 Special Education Fund Expenditure by Function TABLE 18 ........................................................................................................ 60 Vocational Education Fund Expenditure by Function TABLE 19 ........................................................................................................ 61 Cooperative Education Fund Expenditure by Function TABLE 20 ........................................................................................................ 62 Major Fund Average Expenditures by Total Expenditure Quintiles TABLE 21 ........................................................................................................ 64 Major Fund Average Expenditures by Percent of Students Receiving F rec/Reduced Lunch TABLE 22 ........................................................................................................ 66 Major Fund Average Expenditure by Enrollment Size viii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Educational Service Agency .............................................................. ESA Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators ............ MAISA Intermediate School District ............................................................... lSD No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ....................................................... NCLB State Education Agency .................................................................... SEA Local Education Agency .................................................................... LEA Association of Educational Service Agencies .................................... AESA Michigan Educational Assessment Program ..................................... MEAP Michigan Merit Exam ......................................................................... MME Educational Service District ............................................................... ESD Southwest/West Central Educational Cooperative Service Unit ..................................................................................... SWNVC ECSU Center for Educational Performance and lnforrnation ........................ CEPI Financial Information Database ......................................................... FID Michigan Education Information System ............................................ MEIS Workforce Investment Act of 1998 ..................................................... WIA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ......................................... IDEA Coefficient of Variation ....................................................................... CV Career and Technical Education ....................................................... CTE Full Time Equivalency ........................................................................ FTE Adequate Yearly Progress ................................................................. AYP Regional Educational Service Agency ............................................... RESA Introduction The Educational Service Agency (ESA) has been called public education’s “invisible partner.” According to the Michigan Association of lntennediate School Administrators (MAISA), the mission of the state’s Intermediate School Districts (ISDs)-the common name for ESAs in Michigan—is to “provide visionary leadership and quality services to strengthen teaching and learning for all citizens.” As a partner to local school districts, Michigan's lSDs provide services that seek to improve student achievement and opportunity as well as increase efficiency for their member districts. ESAs work behind the scenes to aid local districts in the provision of educational services. This relative invisibility speaks to the fact that the public generally knows little about them. In Michigan, this lack of familiarity comes, in part, from the absence of systematic study of ISD’s performance or their funding and resource allocation structures. The goal of this study is to uncover just what Michigan lSDs do for public education in the state. In order to get to the heart of this basic question, this study will analyze lSD finances, including the sources and level of their funding and the ways in which they allocate their financial resources. This dissertation starts with a review of existing literature, uncovering a history and description of ESAs nationwide. There is a brief assessment of the types of services provided by Michigan lSDs, and a review of current research on the performance of ESAs nationwide. In order to frame this study of ISO funding and spending, past research on patterns of resource allocation by local school districts and organizations at other levels of the educational system will also be reviewed. As a way to increase student achievement, the state department of education and the federal government are increasing accountability for public schools. Likewise, graduation requirements and content expectations are becoming more rigorous. These mandates have led many educators to wonder how they will meet these new requirements. Increasing ESAs responsibility for successful implementation of these mandates is an integral part of the plans developed by both the federal government and the Michigan Department of Education. By examining lSD financial data, this study aims to discover whether or not lSDs have the financial capacity to save failing schools and assist local districts in implementing these new state and federal requirements. Inspecting lSD revenue and expenditure will uncover any differences in per-pupil funding and resource allocation across lSDs. Disparity in finances based on demographic and economic characteristics will be analyzed and may illuminate problems that may pose challenges for or undermine state and federal initiatives. Although there may be policy implications that emerge from this analysis, the objective is not to support nor refute the basic tenets of the state and federal plans. That said, because there has not been any systematic analysis of ISO finances, the results could give new perspective on the efficacy of such plans. Chapter 1: Review of the Literature @911 The ESA in the United States has a long history. As early as the 1930s, states created these agencies to provide programs and assistance to local school districts. Created through state legislation or statute, they were meant to serve the state’s educational interests in various ways. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) ESA is a commonly used term to describe these educational entities, although each state has specific names for their version of these units. Throughout this work, ESA will be used as the general designation for all of these entities. When referring to a specific state’s educational service agency, the formal name will be used. In Michigan, the common designation for ESAs is intermediate school district (lSD). This is telling as ESAs in Michigan often act as the intermediary between the local school district and the state education agency. Stephens and Keane (2005) package the history of ESAs in the United States into four distinct stages. The earliest, from 1930 until the late 1940s, is described as a time of formation, where states created education offices to supervise and assist small rural school districts. During this period, every state structured these agencies differently. Stephens and Keane cite Wagner (1950) who concluded that there were four ways that states organized the service units. Some states used the town as the basic unit, others used the county, some used both the town and county, and still others utilized township and county boundaries to determine the membership of the ESA. No matter how they were organized, the ESA encouraged cooperation among the small districts of that penod. During this formative time, local school districts were also much different than the districts of today. Thurston and Roe (1957) stressed the need for the formation of ESAs due to the pattern and structure of local school districts. In many states, especially those in the rural west and south, there were a large number of very small districts that were often located far from the state capital. Because of this distance, the earliest intermediate units were developed as a branch of the state education agency. These branches were often organized with counties serving as boundaries; county superintendents were hired to manage these intermediate units (Clubberly, 1934). Knezevich (1984) describes the supervisory unions that were formed in New England states. They were similar in function yet different in structure then the rest of the country. In New England, the county holds a weaker position as a political unit, so towns combined to create a federation of local school districts in a region. The second stage suggested by Stephens and Keane (2005) begins in the late 1940s and ends in the mid-1960s. This was a time marked with controversy for the developing ESAs. Many policy makers questioned the value of the county/inten'nediate units as well as the supervisory unions. At the heart of the controversy was the notion that these ESAs existed as a local arm of the state departments of education. Instead, many envisioned these agencies taking a lead role as service providers to local districts. During this stage, rural schools with one or two teachers were declining at an accelerating rate. Because the idea behind the development of the first ESAs was to support the state interests at just these types of schools, a change to the philosophy behind the ESA was looming. Van Miller (1965) held the typical position of those who questioned the validity of the traditional ESA. He argued that as schools merged into larger administrative units, they could provide the oversight and support that necessitated the existence of the ESAs in the first place. With this pressure to change the role of the ESA—or to abolish them completely—came many new ideas for reforming their role in public education. Many who held a stake in the success of service agencies sought to describe what the new ESAs may become. The Department of Rural Education 1950 Yearbook envisioned a new role for the office of the county superintendent. This publication predicted that the ESA of the future would provide general administrative oversight as well as a wide range of educational services to the local districts in their charge. A second idea for the new role of ESAs came from Butterworth and Dawson (1952). Their ideas include curriculum services, transportation, vocational education programs, and adult education. They also suggest essential administrative and organizational features that would be required for such an expanded role to be successful. These administrative changes include stronger support for community interests, 3 separate board that would represent the public, and a size requirement to ensure that each unit would not be too small to be effective and economical. Others sought changes in the philosophy of how the traditional ESA functioned as well as who they served. Some ideas focused on reforming the structure and function of these service units. The Department of Rural Education 1954 Yearbook called for more decision making power in the hands of the people closest to the issues faced by the local districts. This idea of decentralizing the functions of the state department of education and allowing the intermediate units the freedom to manage as they deemed most effective not only increased local control but was also an attempt to increase equity and efficiency (Stephens and Keane,2005) The third stage that Stephens and Keane (2005) suggest is what they call the “Golden Age” in the development of modern ESAs. Beginning in the 1960s, there were several factors that led to reorganization of this middle level of school governance. Several court cases called for increased effort in creating equal educational opportunity as well as enhanced educational quality. Support from county or intermediate service units was seen as a way to achieve the equity and quality required by such mandates. Given the significant decline in the number of very small school districts during the second stage in ESA development (roughly 1945-1965), by the third stage there was growing opposition to the possibility of further consolidation and elimination of rural schools. Collaboration and increased efficiency was sought by strengthening the role of the ESAs as opposed to consolidating schools and/or districts for the same purposes. The newly enacted Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 promoted collaboration between local districts. For example, bonus points were offered to districts that collaborated in the procurement of federal funds under Title III. A more robust role for the service units was seen as a way to achieve this type of collaboration. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) The fourth stage, according to Stephens and Keane (2005), is the present stage that began in the late 1980s. This “restructuring period” is marked by increased involvement of ESAs in specific state and local school improvement initiatives. Because the agencies are again being seen as the agencies that implement state mandates and programs, there is also increased state oversight of the agencies’ activities. The federal government is becoming increasingly aware of the essential role that ESAs play in public education. This is reflected in two basic ways: 0 Through legislation that gives incentives to state and local educational agencies to collaborate in planning and implementing the concept of an ESA. o By issuing reports and position papers that are designed to inform state and local leaders of the merits of regional, multi-jurisdictional approaches to challenges that face both state and local governments. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL. 107-110) (NCLB) recognizes the ESAs role in education and requires states to provide professional development through ESAs. Moreover, in locations where ESAs do not exist, the NCLB requires states to consider setting up some sort of cooperative agreement, such as a consortium of local educational agencies, to meet the requirements of the act. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) This history brings us to the present day and lays the foundation for the next section. Here, the description of ESA structure and the services that are provided around the nation speaks to the beneficial role that ESAs can play in public education. Description of ESAs Across the country, ESAs vary in the services they provide as well as their structure. These organizational differences are often rooted in the laws and statutes that initially created them. They are also funded differently, again typically based on statute. Moreover, the means by which they are governed also varies. Although Stephens (1979) recognized these differences he found that there are patterns of organization that emerge. He created a typology that defines three basic ESA organizational models: Type A: The special gistrict fittern, a legally constituted unit of school government sitting between the state education agency and a collection of local education agencies (LEA). This pattern was built on the concept that ESAs should be established by the state, or the state and local education agencies acting in concert, to provide services to both the state and constituent local districts. Type B: The decentralzed state educatiomencv (SEA) gaitem. consisting of regional branches of the state education agency. This pattern appears to be supported by the view that ESAs should be established as arms of the state to deliver services for the state education agency. Type C: The cooperative pattern, organized through sponsorship by two or more local education agencies of single- or multi- purpose entity designed to promote shared services. This pattern is supported by the view that ESAs should be established by consortia of local school districts to provide services exclusively to members of the consortia. (Stephens, 1979 p. 3) Stephens (1979) further characterized this typology by describing each ESA type along four main organizational characteristics. This typology of ESAs, summarized in Table 1, is important as it aids in the description of the various structures, governance and funding mechanisms, and programs common to contemporary ESAs. Table 1 Stephens’ Typology of Educational Services Agencies Based on Prevailing Patterns of Four Key Characteristics Four Key Characteristics Legal Program ' Framework Governance S and Fiscal Support Type of ESA ewes Type A: Usually highly Tends to be Determined A mix of local, Special structured in lay control by member regional, state District ESA legislation LEA and and and/or SEA the SEA or state/federal regulation by statute (federal funds disbursed through the state‘s educafion agency) Type B: Tends to be Tends to be Tends to be Tends to be Regional , structured in professional almost almost SEA/ESA SEA advisory exclusively exclusively state regulations only determined and only by SEA state/federal Table 1 Continued Type C: Tends to be Tends to be Tends to be Tends to be Cooperative general composed of almost almost ESA and/or representatives exclusively exclusively permissive of member determined local and legislation LEAs by member state/federal LEAs Note. Source: Stephens and Keane 2005, p. 31 The legal framework characteristic of ESAs is a measure of legislative involvement in ESA affairs. Although there are slight differences in the ways that laws and statutes govern ESAs, every state imposes some level of control over them. The ways that ESAs are governed locally varies significantly, according to Stephens’ typology. Type A ESAs are typically governed by an elected board, Type B by advisors and consultants hired by the ESA, and Type C by panels of professionals who represent the ESA's member districts. With the ESA’s expanding role in public education, one can imagine the range of programs and services that they offer. Under Stephens’ typology, the decisions about ESA programs come from the local districts or from the state education agency. ESAs provide, in one way or another, programs that provide or support just about every aspect of education. Stephens and Keane (2005). describe programming patterns that modern ESAs follow. They begin with basic assistance to local districts in implementing state mandated school improvement strategies. Placing more effort on providing support services to low-achieving schools and school districts is becoming an objective of ESA services and resources. Recently, combining the efforts of several ESAs, without merging 1O them administratively is becoming a focus of ESA efforts. This practice allows them to concentrate resources so they are more able to deliver highly specialized educational services, especially to underachieving schools. The Association of Educational Service Agencies (AESA) (2000) compiled the results of a comprehensive national survey of the programs offered by ESAs. The participants of this survey in the 1999-2000 school year represented about 500 services agencies. The AESA used the survey to define three broad categories of services offered by ESAs around the country. In order to make the list the service had to be offered by at least fifty percent of the member organizations. The first category encompasses educational programs offered to students who are enrolled in school districts. These include special education instruction and support, itinerant therapy and instruction, vocational education, gifted and talented instruction, homebound and hospital instruction and alternative school instruction. The second category consists of curricular and instructional support to the staffs of school districts. These programs consist of general staff development, leadership training, learning resource library services, curriculum development, telecommunications, technology and student testing services. The third category that the AESA identified from the survey results is administrative services for school districts. In this category, ESAs provide cooperative purchasing programs, computer and technology services, and financial management services. 11 Description of Services Providefly Michigan lSDs Several times over the last ten years, the MAISA has compiled an inventory of services that their member intermediate districts provide. In their 2001 publication, MAISA combined the results of these inventories. It is important to mention that Michigan lSDs are a Type A: Special District ESA (Stephens and Keane, 2005). This is significant because historically, very few Type A ESAs provide services that serve to effect the state’s system of governance over the operation of school districts. In Michigan, lSDs do little more than a few administrative tasks for the state; the bulk of ISD’s efforts are aimed at providing services and assistance to local school districts. Although each lSD makes programming decisions based on the needs of their members, the MAISA separates the services provided by lSDs into six major categories: 0 General education . Career and technical education . Special education 0 Administrative support 0 Technology support 0 Community relations. First, they provide services to support general education. This includes support for state curricula, professional development, Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), Michigan Merit Exam (MME) and other assessments, and school improvement. Moreover, lSDs assist local districts in 12 providing support for alternative education, parenting education, technology, school safety, and math and science center programming. Another category encompasses career and technical education. Many Michigan lSDs provide vocational education through center-based programs or support for locals districts that provide it themselves. lSDs assist in career and transition support through internship and apprenticeship placement services, workforce training, and career training and planning services. lSDs have always been a major player in the provision of special education services although the nature and extent of the programs vary across Michigan lSDs. lSDs provide center-based programs for low-incidence students and support for higher incidence programs that are housed at local district sites. The staffs of lSDs provide consultative services, staff development and supervision, itinerant staff placement, and transition services for students. lSDs also aid local teachers with technical assistance and general clerical support. According to the MAISA, lSDs across Michigan provide services that fulfill the needs specific to their membership. The MAISA offers a comprehensive list of services that are generally provided by lSDs, but variations in the services actually provided across Michigan lSDs is not documented. (MAISA, 2001). The MAISA claims that many Michigan lSDs assist local districts with administrative and support services. Examples of these services include pupil accounting and student records management services. lSDs assist the business offices of local districts with payroll and other business services as well as other consultation services. The consultation services consist of data collection and 13 processing, investment and cash management services, communications, and legislative support. lSDs provide media relations services, transportation services, truancy programs, conference facilitation, substitute teacher services, purchasing cooperatives, and often act as a liaison between the state department of education and the local districts. lSDs offer assistance to local districts with technology services which include both direct and indirect services. Network connectivity, internet access, media services and assistance with web site development are often provided through cooperation with the ISO. lSDs offer consultation services, cooperative software and hardware purchasing services, as well as cooperative bandwidth, connectivity networks, and telephone services. The last category of services provided by lSDs is made up of community outreach services and services that provide coordination with other agencies. Coalitions between lSDs and local districts often create community and economic development partnerships. lSDs coordinate the activities of human service and non-profit agencies with local districts to provide service to youths and families through a unified regional approach. lSDs in Michigan, according to the MAISA, provide a wide range of services that boost the quality of education. Their claim is that by being close to the districts, they can be flexible and provide the service most needed by the students that they serve. The MAISAs claim that lSDs provide a wide range of services should not be confused with a statement that all lSDs are providing all of these services. 14 Performance of ESAs Over the years there has been much research into ESA service provision, but most of the research originates from ESA themselves, usually in response to questions raised about the role of ESAs in education. Consequently, much of the literature reads as though the author is attempting to justify the existence of these agencies. Since the ESAs themselves are the source for much of this information, not independent researchers, it may be biased—the ESAs after all are interested parties in the assessment of what they do and how well they do it. The literature that deals with ESA performance focuses heavily on what these agencies do well. Thus far, the performance of ESAs has not received much attention from disinterested researchers. Given that caveat, there is ample information attesting to the positive impact that ESAs have on public education. Some research shows that moving the provision of services from the local district to the ESA can bring about substantial savings. According to M. Craig Stanley, in a study of Massachusetts ESAs that compared the costs of regional service provision to the costs of individual school district provision, savings for local districts equaled anywhere from 22 percent for printing services to 78 percent for itinerant staff shared between districts. (Stanley 2003) Many states offer on-line, virtual classes. Pennsylvania has organized their ESAs into a cooperative to provide on-line distance learning. Janet Dubble and Kristen Swengel (2002) reported on the growth of virtual learning programs offered by the Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate unit in cooperation with ESAs 15 across Pennsylvania. They reported on the collaboration, components of effective online courses, and the goals of the program. Their analysis focused on the program’s impact on student achievement, the strategic relationships that develop among districts, and on cost effectiveness. They reported that the program offers classes, especially in rural areas, to students who would othenrvise go without, and that collaboration among districts is enhanced due to requirements of administrating online courses. Moreover, the program saves thousands of dollars for local districts because the Intermediate Units can negotiate with vendors to get volume discount pricing for all the districts in the state. This large volume allows for the lowest possible purchase price for the local school districts. NCLB increases the requirements for paraprofessionals, and many local districts do not have the capacity to develop programs to prepare their staffs for the required tests. Again, the ESAs are qualified to provide this training and preparation for the employees of their member districts. NCLB has created many new challenges for the local school district. Many of these challenges could potentially be met through ESAs. Because they have the technical know-how and the capacity to develop programs and training, ESAs can give the support that is needed for districts to face the challenges of accountability under NCLB. (Wilcox and Sexton, 2004; McNally and Abdella, 2004) A 1995 report on the system of Educational Service Districts (ESDs) in the State of Washington was conducted under the direction of the state’s legislative budget committee. This study audited seven programs in all nine of the state’s 16 regional ESAs. There were two parts to the analysis, the first based on the results of a survey that was completed by local districts. The second dimension of the budget committee’s study measured the cost-effectiveness of the state’s ESAs. This was an attempt to not only determine if services were provided at a good price, but also to ascertain whether the ESDs could achieve economies of scale that would maximize savings. The report stated that ESDs are essential to providing efficient and accessible services to the students of the state. Moreover, many small districts would go without the service altogether or settle for lower quality service provision lacking ESD support. Due to the ESDs capacity, they are able to provide specialized services at a fraction of the cost that a local district would pay on their own. (Arfstrom, 2004) A study in Minnesota returned comparable results. One specific ESA, the Southwest/West Central Educational Cooperative Service Unit (SWNVC ECSU), which serves almost 100 school districts, used purchasing records to track cost savings estimates for the 1994-1995 school year. The records of all purchases made in all ten categories of provided services were analyzed for every local district in their cooperative. The categories were media services, cooperative purchasing, equipment maintenance, science kits for classrooms, health and safety services, special education, a student records management service, group insurance, technology services, and professional development. The most notable savings came in areas such as film services, with a 70 percent savings; health and safety programs, 49 percent; and equipment repair services, 45 percent savings. The SWNVC ECSU also evaluated the effects of cooperative 17 purchasing on efficiency. Through the purchasing cooperative, districts saved an average of 52 percent for office and classroom equipment, 42 percent for computer hardware and supplies, 26 percent on custodial supplies, and 24 percent on paper. (Arfstrom, 2004) Special education programs and services were also analyzed in the Minnesota study. The most striking savings came where districts shared specialized personnel. For example, in districts where they shared psychologists, the average savings was 65 percent; sharing specialized teachers, such as speech and occupational therapists, saved districts an average of 42 percent; and sharing program coordinators saved roughly 51 percent. (Arfstrom, 2004) A study of the actual cost savings for various service provided through an ESA was also performed in Oregon. In his study of cost efficiency, David Campbell (2001) determined the unit of measurement describing the cost of services as provided by the ESA and compared this against vendors that offer comparable services. He took into account all factors when designing his research and was thus able to compare unit cost per service provided by the ESA to private sector providers. The Clackamas ESD provides typical ESA services for its member districts and Campbell reported substantial cost savings for the local districts that are affiliated with the ESA. For example, when a district used the Clackamas ESDs media center; they average an 80 percent savings over other vendor alternatives. (Campbell, 2001) The savings that are reported in these studies come due to economies of scale. Because these ESAs purchase goods and services in quantity, they can 18 get them at a lower cost. In the cases where many districts share a specialist, the savings come because the cost of the specialist is spread over many more students then if each district hired their own specialist. Although this information comes from sources inside ESAs and may be somewhat biased, it represents the research that is currently available on ESA performance. ESAs provide programs and services that are valuable to local districts, often at a reduced cost. ESA Funding and Resource Allocation Overall, there is no definite pattern to the sources of funding for ESAs. Type A: Special District and Type C: Cooperative networks both draw on a combination of state, federal, local/regional, and other sources for funding. Type B: Regionalized agencies are almost exclusively funded by state and federal sources. Type B ESAs’ federal funds tend to come via the state education agency. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) State sources of funding for ESAs are often designated by statute for administration, educational programs, and capital improvements. Many programs are funded by categorical grants. Administrative support is often provided because the functions and requirements are the result of the guidelines and requirements of the individual grant. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) Common local or regional sources of funding, depending on the statutory requirements of the state, come from local taxes for administration, educational programs, or specific services that the ESA provides to local districts. Type A: Special District agencies are legally authorized to levy taxes for programs and capital improvements. In some states, ESAs charge membership dues, and 19 some contract their services to local districts for a fee. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) Federal funding comes through categorical grants or contracts tied to specific programs or services. Where “other” sources are noted in the literature, this tends to signify several different methods by which ESAs fund programs. For example, ESAs contract services to member districts, and many are entrepreneurial. These districts may sell products, act as broker for members, or enter into partnerships with other agencies to make a profit for the ESA. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) ESAs that receive state funding for operational purposes often do not receive state funds for capital improvements or acquisitions. Consequently, these agencies often raise capital funds through special assessments on the participating schools for the program. Often this is for vocational education or special education facilities. These assessments or membership fees are used to offset the administrative costs for the ESA. (Stephens and Keane, 2005) Michigan lSDs, from what we know, are funded through a combination of local, state and federal sources. Typical of Type A, Special District, agencies, they are statutorily authorized by the Michigan Revised School Code 380.625a to seek public approval to levy taxes for career-technical education, general operations, special education needs, and other specific uses. They are also able to charge fees for services that they provide to local districts. (MAISA, 2001) Again, information on the revenue picture of lSDs, other than the statutory rules and information provided by the agencies themselves, is largely unknown. 20 Legally, each lSD must provide a budget to the local districts that they serve for approval each year. The finances of Michigan lSDs have not been systematically studied. The funding and resource allocation of local school districts, however, have been analyzed by a number of researchers. Past analyses of funding and resource allocation by local school districts may help to frame the study of lSD revenue and expenditure. First, they provide a benchmark set of findings to compare against the data obtained for lSDs. Second, they identify a methodology for undertaking this sort of analysis. Nationally, funding for public elementary and secondary schools has seen a steady increase over the last fifteen years. According to the US Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics (2006), total funding across the country increased 47 percent between 1989-90 and 2002-03. Revenue for public schools originates at the federal, state, and local levels, and the total amount from each has increased, though not at the same rate, during this same period. Federal and state revenues grew at a faster rate than local sources, in fact the proportion from local sources declined from 47 percent in 1989-90 to 43 percent in 2002-03. Regionally there are different patterns of elementary and secondary school funding. Over the same 1989-2003 period, public schools in the Midwest saw the largest decrease in the local share of revenues. Major decreases in the local property tax rates account for the majority of this decrease. The Northeast also experienced decreases in the local share of public school revenues. Both 21 the Midwest and Northeast experienced increases in the proportion of total revenue from federal and state sources. The proportion of total revenue from local sources changed negligibly in both the South and the West. Nevertheless, the proportion of local funding that came from property tax revenues in both these regions grew from 1989—90 to 2002-03. In both the South and West, the proportion of revenue from state sources declined. Moreover, the proportion of the total revenue that was received from the states decreased while that from federal sources increased. Although the national funding levels indicated above show slow growth over the period represented, funding education is still a polarizing problem across the country. According to Odden and Picus (2004), variances in the amount of wealth per-pupil have historically led to differences in spending across school districts. These fiscal disparities produce situations where districts with a high property tax base spend more per-pupil with lower tax rates, while districts with a low property tax base spend less per—pupil despite taxing themselves at higher rates. In Michigan, the 1994 passage of Proposal A drastically lowered local property taxes as it shifted much of the school revenue responsibility to the state. As an added benefit, Proposal A reduced inequalities in per-pupil funding across local districts in the state. Prior to this landmark policy, spending per-pupil in the wealthiest districts was over $10,000, while the districts with lower property values often spent less then $4,000 per-pupil. Raising new money in the districts with low property value placed a heavy tax burden on the residents as many 22 more mills were required to raise the same amount of money as compared to districts with high property values. These differences in spending across districts became a problem of equality as well as quality, so with Proposal A, less education revenue came from local sources (usually local property taxes), and more would originate from the state through foundation allowances that would level the revenue across districts. Although the per-pupil difference between the highest spending and lowest spending districts has been decreased since Proposal A’s passage, other phenomena have policy makers concerned with the funding structure under Proposal A. The central cities across Michigan face declining enrollments that lead to lower funding levels and major programmatic changes. Likewise, the districts with the highest percentage of African American students have seen slower growth in their foundation allowance compared to districts with lower minority population. (Arsen and Plank, 2003) Odden and Picus (2004) reviewed the existing research of educational resource allocation at the national, state, and local levels. At the national level, they found that the typical spending pattern is that about 60% of current operating expenditures is devoted to instruction, about 10% for instructional support, 10% for administration, 10% for operations, and 10% for transportation, food and other services. This pattern is roughly stable over time and across states. (Monk, Roellke, and Brent, 1996; Odden and Picus, 2004) At the school district level, a similar pattern emerges, with some notable although slight, differences. More affluent districts tend to devote a slightly 23 higher share of the spending on staff. Odden and Picus (2004) summarize the district spending pattern by stating that while districts overall devote about 60% of current expenditures to instruction, this share tends to decline in higher spending districts. They also find that instructional support makes up a greater percentage Of higher-spending districts’ expenditure. Because of this, regular education instruction may fall to around 50% over time, as more and more support staff is added. Guthrie, Kirst, and Odden (1990) summarized California data on school- level expenditures and found that the pattern is similar to the national, state and district data. Their findings placed about 63% of spending going to instructional expenditures, 31% for operations, instructional support and site administration and the other 6% going toward district administration, and the state department of education. Fox (1989) analyzed national data on classroom expenditures with similar results. His findings reflect that nationally about 55% is spent on instruction. These findings suggest that local school district revenue and expenditure follow some predictable patterns. Is this so for ESAs, or more specifically, Michigan lSDs? The following pages describe the method by which this question can be answered. 24 Chapter 2: Research Methods and Design Reseatrcflgestions In this study the objective is to analyze the finances of Michigan’s lSDs to ascertain patterns in the ways that they allocate their resources. The research is designed to answer two questions: 1) How do lSDs vary in the level and source of their revenues? a) How does the degree of inequality in revenues across lSDs compare to the inequality in local district revenues? b) From what sources do lSDs obtain their funds? 0) How does the level and source of ISO revenues vary with respect to ISO characteristics such as enrollment size, socio-economic status, or educafionalneed? 2) What patterns emerge in the way that lSDs spend their money? a) How do lSDs allocate their expenditures across alternative functions? b) How does resource allocation vary by lSD characteristic? These questions are interesting and timely. The questions are interesting because there has been no systematic study of Michigan lSD funding and resource allocation. We know that this research is timely because the Michigan . Department of Education and the office of the state superintendent of public instruction are looking for ways to better integrate the lSDs into the state system of education. A good place to start this evaluation is to analyze how lSDs are funded and then how they spend their resources. This section details the 25 proposed study’s research methods and design. Descriptions of the data, the measures and procedures will be explained. Data Sources and Descrjptions The source of the data for this research is the Michigan Department of Education and the Center for Educational Performance and lnformation’s (CEPI) Financial lnforrnation Database (FID). CEPI gathers and reports data about the performance of Michigan’s public schools, including the Michigan Education Information System (MEIS). The MEIS is the data warehouse system used by school districts to submit data to the state. Financial data submitted to CEPI by school districts and lSDs via the F ID include information from districts' annual financial reports, balance sheets, revenues, district expenditures and school expenditures. This financial information will be the primary data used in this study to examine the revenues and expenditures of Michigan lSDs. This study will use data from one year to perform a cross-sectional analysis. The data is from the 2005-2006 school year. lSD financial accgu_nt§ For each lSD the analysis will focus on four funds. The general fund, the special education fund, the cooperative education fund and the vocational education fund. The state establishes uniform guidelines for the classification of financial transactions in each of these funds, and they are the primary funds relevant to lSD operations. The general fund supports general operations of the lSD. A typical lSD for example, will allocate funds to early education, general 26 education, technology, fiscal services, central office administration and the lSD board of education in their general fund accounting. The special education fund supports all of special education. This may include a special education center, court mandated programs, ancillary services (including low incidence specialists), and special education administration. Local school districts include special education in their general education fund. lSDs, however, have a separate fund for special education expenditures. The cooperative education fund often supports occupational training or upgrade retraining. Often this is to train displaced workers. This fund also supports programs that assist adults in developing knowledge and skills needed to meet educational objectives. These programs, including the Michigan Works program are often federally funded through the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (PL105-220) (WIA) or with funds that come through state employment services. The vocational education fund supports vocational and technical education in an lSD. Frequently this includes a vocational/technical education center, adult education, and support services for these programs. lSD revenue data In a broad sense, revenue for each of these funds comes from three sources. lSDs may secure revenues for each of these funds from local, state, and/or federal sources. Local sources of revenue include taxes levied by the lSD, contributions from local school districts for specific programs, 27 reimbursement from local districts for itinerant staff, donations, and revenue from programs offered by the lSD on a fee for service basis. State sources of revenue are often tied to specific state education programs and are therefore accounted for under specific funds. In each of the funds, state revenue comes in the form of grants. Some are categorical grants that are required to be used for specific programs or for specific populations. Other grants are unrestricted and may be used by the ISO for any legal purpose. State sources of revenue are received under specific state aid sections. These state aid sections and the purposes for which they are used are seen in the Appendix A. Federal revenue for Michigan lSDs also takes the form of grants. Each fund receives revenues from federal categorical grants that are tied to specific federally supported programs. Similar to state grants, some federal grants are unrestricted. See Appendix B for a comprehensive listing of federal revenue accounted for in the FID data. An ISD’s special education receives federal revenue under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA revenue can be used for various programs such as Enhancing Opportunities for Students with Disabilities, transition, and preschool initiatives. Other federal programs such as Medicaid and Title I provide special education revenue for lSDs. Medicaid revenue is often flow-through from lSDs to the local districts. Cooperative education is frequently funded solely with federal funds. WIA often provides the bulk of revenue for this fund. Another federal source of 28 revenue for the cooperative education fund is through federal employment services. lSD expenditure data The financial data submitted by lSDs to the state also include uniform and audited statements of their expenditures from each of these accounts. The expenditures are reported by functional areas. There are five broad functions and a myriad of sub-functions as well. This analysis of ISO expenditure will examine expenditures under seven functions: instruction, supporting services, community services, outgoing transfers, facilities acquisition, prior period adjustments, and other support services. Supporting services are further separated into six support services common to lSDs. These include administrative support, business support, operations and maintenance, central support and other supporting services. Instructional expenses refer to the activities that directly deal with teaching students. Sub-categories in this area include pre-school programs, special education, career and technical education, adult and continuing education, and occupational training. These categories are often specific to a fund. For example, the special education instructional expenses are typically reported in the special education fund; career and technical education instructional expenses are reported in the vocational education fund. Support service expenses facilitate and support instruction. These services typically provide some type of administrative, technical, and logistical support to instructional programs. At the ISO level, these programs often include 29 student support services such as truancy, guidance and or counseling, and that of specialists such as audiologists, social workers, and teacher consultants for students with special needs such as autism, visual impairment, and hearing impairment. There are also supporting services for instructional staff, general administration, and operations. Instructional staff services include professional development, media services, technology services, and assessment services. General administration support services include activities which are concerned with managing and operating the ISO such as business support services, board of education support, and executive administration expenses. Operations support services refer to maintenance, transportation, and custodial services. Often these support services are specific to and accounted for under certain funds. Community service expenditures support programs that are not directly related to providing education for pupils. These include services that are provided by the lSD to the community as a whole such as Internet connectivity for the residents, civil defense planning, and welfare activities. These programs are often specific to and accounted for under certain categorical or earmarked funds. Payments to other governmental agencies are often tied to specific funds based on the source of the expenditure. For example, flow-through Medicare payments to local school districts as well as legal expenses for special education issues are typically reported under the special education fund. Expenses 30 reported for the function of other financing uses are expenditures for facilities acquisition, debt service payments and fund modifications. The F ID data are comprehensive and extensive and although they are the most thorough source of financial data available for analysis there are some inherent limitations. The most obvious limitation arises due to the fact that-- although there is consistency in how the data are reported- each lSD has some discretion in what to include under each classification simply because the official accounting guidelines leave a small measure of ambiguity regarding the appropriate categorization of some financial transactions. Although I am unaware of any specific instances where this has happened, it should be noted that there may be some slight inconsistencies in financial reporting across lSDs. The information for the 57 Michigan lSDs has been disaggregated, re- aggregated and organized in ways that will allow for analysis in respect of the research questions. Focusing on the revenue questions first, and then the expenditures; the following two chapters illuminate the financial world of Michigan lSDs. 31 Chapter 3: lSD Revenue As mentioned above, fiscal disparities across local school districts were narrowed with the passage of Proposal A. A primary objective of this study is to determine whether fiscal disparities exist across lSDs. As the state of Michigan gives lSDs more responsibilities, it is important to discern whether or not lSDs have the fiscal capacity to successfully take on these new tasks. The most basic question, and one that needs to be illuminated at the outset, is one of equality. Is there a difference in the spread of revenue per-pupil at the ISO level as compared to local school districts? Are lSDs better situated than local districts, based on their revenue, to attack educational achievement issues? Moreover, as state and federal initiatives are handed to lSDs to be implemented, do lSDs play on eqUal fields when addressing these mandates, in terms of per-pupil revenue? Table 2 shows the dispersion of per-pupil general fund revenue among Michigan’s local school districts and among the state’s lSDs. The coefficient of variation (CV) offers a standardized metric for evaluating the degree of inequality or dispersion of variables (the standard deviation divided by the mean). It is sometimes interpreted as indicating the percent of variation around the mean. (The higher the CV, the greater the dispersion or inequity in the variable) Although there is no standard for a desirable CV, 10% (or CV=0.10) is often cited as a target or acceptable level of intrastate revenue inequality across local districts. (Odden and Picus, 2004) 32 Table 2 Inequality in Per-pupil Revenue: Michigan lSDs and Local Districts Using Coefficient of Variation Standard Coefficient Deviation Mean of Variation Intermediate School Districts General Fund Revenue per-pupil 128.07 $284.80 0.45 Local Districts General Fund Revenue per-pupil 2962.93 $8,855.35 0.33 Ngt_e_, Total Revenue = Gen Fund + Sp Ed Fund + Voc Ed Fund + Coop Ed Fund Using data from Michigan Department of Education’s 2005-06 Bulletin 1014, the mean per-pupil revenue for the state’s local school districts was $8,855.35 with a CV = 0.33. This indicates that two-thirds of the districts have per-pupil general fund revenue between $5,892.42 and $11,818.28 (plus and minus 33% of $8,855.35). On the other hand, lSDs in Michigan, that same school year, had mean per-pupil general fund revenue of $284.80 with a CV = 0.45—a level of dispersion significantly above that which characterized local districts. This shows that two-thirds of the lSDs have per-pupil general fund revenue between $156.73 and $412.87. Although the absolute level of ISO funding falls well below that of local districts, the variation in lSD revenue is much greater. This larger variation suggests disparities in the capacity of lSDs to assume expanded responsibilities in the absence of additional funding support. 33 Statewide lSD Revenue Data The inequality in revenue across lSDs that is indicated by the coefficient of variation does not seem to hinder the steady flow of responsibility that is being shifted from the Michigan Department of Education to lSDs. It is possible that within lSDs, as their requirements change, their funding profiles would change to meet the new challenges. In order to see the big picture, and more accurately define the revenue that is available to lSDs to do business, the sources and levels from each source of revenue must be examined. Appendix C gives an overview of the sources of revenue into each fund. The general fund and three other funds that are specific to lSDs have been organized for such an analysis. To begin, Table 3 gives a broad picture of the revenue reported by lSDs for comparison, fund-to-fund. Table 3 Total Revenue for Michigan lSDs by Major Funds Fund Total $ Per-pupil % of Total General $330,566,541 .18 $203.92 14.01 Special Education $1 ,740,61 1,306.85 $1,073.74 73.77 Vocational Education $245,688,071.56 $151.56 10.41 Cooperative Education $42,524,251.17 $26.23 1.80 Total $2,359,390,170.76 $1,455.46 100 Statewide, the special education fund is the major source of ISO revenue. Even though much of the special education fund revenue is transferred directly to local districts, once that money is removed the revenue reported in the special education fund is still more than two times the general fund revenue. 34 Table 4 shows the sources of the revenue into the general fund. Local sources of revenue into the general fund are due to the ability of lSDs to levy taxes on the property in their jurisdiction. Moreover, local districts may levy taxes and pass the proceeds on to the ISO. Fees for services, including tuition and transportation services, amount to almost $10 million of the local sources of general fund revenue. Table 4 Sources of General Fund Revenue Statewide, For all lSDs Total Per-pupil % of Total Local $112,539,953.77 $69.42 34.04 State $99,748,151.73 $61.53 30.18 Federal $52,077,321.71 $32.13 15.75 Non-Governmental Entity $1,603,623.57 $0.99 0.49 Incoming Transfers & Other $64,597,490.40 $39.85 ' 19.54 Total $330,566,541.18 $203.92 100 Both state and federal sources mainly take the form of categorical grants that must be used for specific purposes. Some of the state and federal money is not categorical in nature, but unrestricted, and can be used for any legal purpose. For comparison, Michigan local school districts’ main source of state funding--the foundation allowance--is allocated in unrestricted form. The foundation allowance can be used for any legal purpose by local districts. Non-governmental entity revenue comes from specific non-educational entities. Casino money, fines for drunk driving in some areas, and library fines that are collected and distributed to lSDs are included in this revenue source. Incoming transfers are usually transfers from other funds within the lSD from 35 other governmental units, or from other public schools. Other financing sources include revenue generated through the issuance of bonds, sale of assets, lease income, and debt refinancing. 1 Table 5 illustrates the sources of special education fund revenue. The local money, like in the general fund, comes mostly from property taxes and fees for services. Tuition, often for center based special education programs, makes up a large portion of the fees collected from local districts by the lSDs. Furthermore, this revenue is used to fund itinerant specialists who provide services to students throughout the lSD. The revenue from state and federal sources comes in the form of categorical and unrestricted grants. The categorical money must be used for specific purposes and the unrestricted revenue can be used for any legal purpose by the ISO. Table 5 Sources of Special Education Fund Revenue Statewide, For all lSDs Total Per-pupil % of Total Local $976,889,533.37 $602.62 56.12 State $279,965,318.65 $172.70 16.08 Federal $402,934,289.35 $248.56 23.15 Non-Governmental Entity $277,926.1 1 $0.17 0.02 Incoming Transfers & Other $80,544,239.37 $49.69 4.63 Total $1,740,611,306.85 $1,073.74 100 Non-governmental entity sources and incoming transfers and other sources include revenue as stated above in the description of general fund revenue. 36 The vocational education fund revenue sources are described in Table 6. As described in the general fund and special education fund above, the local sources come mostly from property taxes and fees for services. Tuition in this fund is often paid for career and technical education (CTE) that is provided or funded by the ISO. This tuition is paid to lSDs who run career and technical education centers for their members. The revenue from state sources is received in the form of categorical and unrestricted grants as in the general fund and special education fund. Federal sources of revenue reported in the vocational education fund are made up of grants that are solely categorical in nature. Table 6 Sources of Vocational Education Fund Revenue Statewide, For All lSDs Total Per-pupil % of Total Local $190,313,087.43 $117.40 77.46 State $23,910,240.09 $14.75 9.73 Federal $21 ,775,558.52 $13.43 8.87 Non-Governmental Entity , $10,030.00 $0.01 0.00 Incoming Transfers & Other $9,679,155.52 $5.97 3.94 Total $245,688,071 .56 $151.56 100 Non-governmental entity sources and incoming transfers and other sources include revenue as stated above in the description of general fund revenue. The cooperative education fund revenue sources are described in Table 7. All the sources of revenue into the cooperative education fund mirror the funding profiles of the sources in the other major funds described above except local 37 sources. Local sources of revenue reported in the cooperative education fund do not come from taxes. Instead, local funds in this fund come from fees for services and tuition. Federal sources of revenue in the cooperative education fund are the major source of total cooperative education fund revenue and come as categorical and unrestricted grants. Revenue from the WIA for job training and retraining makes up the largest portion of this federal money. Table 7 Sources of Cooperative Education Fund Revenue Statewide, For all lSDs Total ' Per-pupil % of Total Local $2,032,896.70 $1.25 4.78 State $1,529,441.35 $0.94 3.60 Federal $26,982.691.69 $16.65 63.45 Non-Governmental Entity $154,734.04 $0.10 0.36 Incoming Transfers & Other $11,824,487.39 $7.29 27.81 Total $42,524,251.17 $26.23 100 As mentioned above, state revenue is allocated to the lSDs in the form of grants. Some of these grants are categorical and received for specific purposes. Other revenue from the state may be used for any legal purpose desired by the lSD without restriction. Of the two types of grants, categorical or unrestricted, the restricted grants are, by far, the larger source of state revenue in all of the funds. Besides categorical versus unrestricted, the biggest difference in the state money is the way that it is directed into the hands of the ISO. Some of these grants come through a sub-grantee, such as a non-educational entity, and others come . by way of member local districts and public school academies. 38 Similarly, federal revenue to the four funds is entirely made up of grants. Of these grants, only the special education fund receives any negligible unrestricted revenue and this revenue flows through the state. The majority of federal grant revenue is categorical in nature. Similar to revenue from state sources, the biggest difference is in the way that the money is channeled from the federal government to the lSDs. Some comes through sub-grantees, such as local districts or non-educational governmental units. In addition, some comes through the state that receives the money and distributes it to lSDs based on preexisting formulas. Within each of the four major funds that lSDs use to account for their revenue, there are really no surprises. Basically, most of the local revenue in each fund comes from local taxes. Both state and federal revenue take the form of grants, of which most are restricted and categorical in nature. That said, there may be more interest in the differences between the four funds. For example, statewide special education fund revenue is more than five times the revenue reported in the general fund. This is important, but because the ISO often acts as a conduit of state and federal funds, much of which is for special education programs and services, the amount does not come as any surprise. To be clear, about $823 million of special education fund revenue was expensed as transfers to other public schools in the state, mostly to local districts. The vocational education fund revenue, although nominally closer to the revenue reported in the general fund, is reported by only 36 lSDs. More than a third of the lSDs report no money through the vocational education fund, but the 39 statewide total is more than two-thirds the statewide general fund revenue total. Vocational education, or career technical education, may not be offered in every lSD, but these programs generate a robust revenue stream for the participating lSDs. Cooperative education, which draws largely on federal revenue inithe form of categorical grants, is reported by only nineteen lSDs statewide. Although the amount of money is negligible compared to the other three funds, it is interesting to note that the lSDs that report cooperative education revenue are mostly rural/exurban or located in the Upper Peninsula of the state. The revenue available to lSDs varies across the state without taking into account demographic differences. These demographic characteristics need to be examined to get a better picture of ISO funding. This leads to the next logical question in this analysis of ISO funding: Does the level and source of lSD revenues differ with respect to ISO characteristics such as enrollment size, region, or educational need? Eatterns in ISO Revenu_es_bv lSD Characteristic There is considerable variation in the demographic characteristics of Michigan lSDs. From the far reaches of the Upper Peninsula to the central cities of metropolitan Detroit and Grand Rapids, these characteristics may have some effect on the patterns of revenue for lSDs. For example, lSD enrollment size varies from 3,000 to over 300,000. Table 8 shows the breakdown of the per-pupil revenue based on the enrollment size of the lSDs. Although one would expect small per-pupil variation based on the enrollment size of the lSD, the largest lSDs - more than 30,000 full 40 time equivalencies (FTE) - report the lowest revenue per-pupil in three of the four major funds. FTE is the means by which the state accounts for pupil enrollment. In the general fund these 11 largest lSDs report average per-pupil revenue that is only three-fourths of the average statewide per-pupil general fund revenue. The general fund encompasses the revenue that is used for general education support. The largest lSDs have fewer resources available to provide general instructional support to the staff and students in their local districts. All of the other enrollment groups depicted in Table 8 have per-pupil revenue that is at or above the general fund statewide average of $203.92. Table 8 Average Per-pupil Revenue by lSD Enrollment Size Average Per-pupil Revenue Gen Spec. Ed Voc Ed Coop Ed lSD Enrollment Size Total Fund Fund Fund Fund FTE>30,000 11ISDS $1,338.73 $154.28 $1,063.25 $105.51 $15.77 1,075,953 FTE 15,000 45% (15 lSDs) 485,122 FTE 311116-55 $13755 $869.19 $67.76 $42.04 Taking into consideration the nine lSDs with the largest percentage of students attending failing schools (Table 10 above) in conjunction with the FRL data, shows that schools fail for reasons other than family poverty. Three of the nine lSDs fall into the 0-30% FRL category, three in the 30-40% FRL group, two in the 40-45% F RL category, and only one - Wayne RESA - in the greater-than 45% FRL group. This is important as many people believe that the failing schools are the schools with the largest percent FRL students. This is not the case. Of the nine lSDs with more than ten percent of their students attending failing schools, six have less then 40 percent of their students receiving FRL. The federal NCLB law provides financial support to assist failing schools that are also Title I eligible schools, or schools with a large percent of FRL students. The fact that less than half of the failing schools in Michigan are Title I eligible schools places an even larger burden on lSDs. Although the state and federal 64 government has programs in place to assist Title I eligible schools, no such support'exists, currently, for non-Title I schools. The lSDs are the entity that will be required to provide the programs and services that will help non-Title I schools improve their progress. Compared to the statewide per-pupil expenditure averages, the lowest F RL percent group is in line with the state average total per-pupil expenditure of $1 ,434.52. The group of lSDs with 30-40% FRL is above the state average in all four funds. The group with 40-45% FRL is below the state average in special education and cooperative education funds but less than $100 below the statewide average for per-pupil total expenditure. The group with the highest percent FRL students is below the state average in all funds except the cooperative education fund. The conclusion drawn from Table 21 is not that the lowest percent of F RL equates to the most per-pupil spending. In fact, the lSDs with 30-40% FRL have the highest per—pupil spending in every fund. Apparently, the ideal situation would be to have enough economically disadvantaged students to warrant expense on programs that bring in state and federal grants designed to aid this population, such as Title I funds, but not so many that the money spent diminishes on a per-pupil basis. Compared to the state averages the spending pattern shown in Table 21 indicates an inequality that may hinder state and federal efforts to educate economically disadvantaged students. Total enrollment as an ISO characteristic shows no pattern in relation to lSD expenditure. As can be seen in Table 22, there is no consistent growth or 65 shrinking of per-pupil expenditure as ISO enrollment increases. Although the largest lSDs do have the lowest expenditure across the board, at the other four enrollment levels, there is no pattern. The 11 lSDs with the largest enrollment report average per-pupil expenditure below the state average in all four funds. The two groups with the lowest enrollments - less than 10,000 students - are above the state average in the general and vocational education funds but below the state average in the special education and cooperative education funds. The lSDs at the next level, between 15,000 and 30,000, are above the state average in all four funds. Table 22 Major Fund Average Per-pupil Expenditure by lSD Enrollment Size Average Expenditure Per-pupil Gen Spec. Ed Voc Ed Coop lSD Enrollment Size Total Fund Fund Fund Ed Fund FTE>30,000 11lSDs $1,323.15 $151.26 $1,040.99 $115.11 $15.79 1,075,953 FTE 15,000< FTE<30,000 10|SDs $1,809.80 $334.79 $1,192.35 $247.77 $34.90 232,841 FTE 10,000< FTE<15,000 11|SDs $1,533.53 $232.32 $1,018.03 $217.15 $66.03 140,985 FTE 7,000< FTE<10,000 12 lSDs $1,493.49 $320.11 $889.71 $232.99 $50.67 104,682 FTE 3,000< FTE<7,000 13ISDS $1,619.43 $313.93 $1,025.31 $234.52 $45.68 66,603 FTE 66 Considering the nine lSDs with more than ten percent of the students attending failing schools - shown in Table 10 - four are from the group with over 30,000 students and four are from the group with 15,000-30,000 students. This is important because the group with 15,000-30,000 students spends more per- pupil than any of the other enrollment groups, yet four of the 10 lSDs included have a large number of students attending failing schools when compared with lSDs statewide. These lSDs may not be utilizing their resources in a way that assists local schools not making AYP. As more responsibility is shifted from the state department of education to the lSD level, these lSDs will need to change their spending priorities to align with state mandates. Likewise, NCLB requires these lSDs to assist failing schools. Therefore, the lSDs with high expenditure and low achievement, no matter what their enrollment, will need to reevaluate their spending to satisfy the requirements of the law. Summam lSDs generally allocate most of their financial resources to instruction and instructional support programs for their member districts. Providing these services is the aim of Michigan lSDs. Demographic and economic characteristics have a profound effect on ISO expenditure. lSDs with the largest percentage of economically disadvantaged students spend less money per-pupil than lSDs with lower FRL numbers. Large, metropolitan lSDs also have the lowest per-pupil expenditure as compared to lSDs with smaller enrollments. The overall wealth of an ISO, defined by their total expenditure, indicates that the lowest spending lSDs allocate a larger percentage of resources through 67 the special education fund. The higher spending lSDs spend a higher percentage on programs and services through the general education fund. The exception is with the highest total expenditure lSDs where a smaller percentage is allocated through the general education fund, and a larger percentage is spent on CTE. These factors point to a need at the state level to reevaluate the funding structures for the state’s lSDs. Combined with the ever increasing list of responsibilities that are being shifted to the lSD level, inequality in expenditures across lSDs may lead to unequal implementation of state and federal mandates, specifically those aimed at increasing student achievement and local district efficiency. Because lSDs have a large degree of freedom when making decisions about allocation of resources, the lSDs will also have to take another look at the programs they are supporting if they want to comply with state and federal mandates. 68 Chapter 5: Summary and Implications The analysis of ISO revenue and expenditure has shown that fiscal disparity exists across Michigan lSDs. There may be some conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of this data that could affect future funding and resource allocation for lSDs. Examination of ISO revenue proved that across Michigan lSDs, there are varying levels of capacity. The coefficient of variation in Table 1 demonstrated that the spread of general fund revenue for I803 is much greater than that of local districts. From this data alone, we see that compared to local districts, lSDs have a greater degree of variation in the resources available in the general fund. Federal initiatives, most notably NCLB, aim to increase student achievement through accountability and increased teacher and support staff quality. State programs that aim to increase achievement and rigor, such as increased graduation requirements, school improvement constraints, and K-12 content expectations, have also had an impact on local districts. Both state and federal governments are expecting lSDs to take on more responsibility to assist local districts. As demonstrated by the coefficient of variation, there is an inequality across lSDs in their fiscal ability to lend such assistance. Many of these state and federal programs are in their infancy and the full effect has not been seen. As time goes on and these programs mature, more and more schools may find themselves in distress. The expectation of the federal government is that lSDs will move in to aid the schools that are not meeting the requirements. At the state level, programs previously administered 69 by the state department of education are now being transferred to the ISO level for implementation. Examination of the revenue data for lSDs does not support the notion that lSDs have equal resources to provide the needed programs, services, and support. Some lSDs have more financial capacity than others, and due to the disparity across lSDs, many will be seeking more financial support from the local taxpayers or petitioning the state for a new funding structure to help them meet the needs of their member districts. Some believe that the biggest problem in school finance is caused by varying levels of property wealth. Others argue that the issue is an inability to tie school finance to adequate levels of education. Still others seek ways to increase achievement with current levels of funding. (Odden and Picus, 2004) No matter where one stands in this debate it is clear that Michigan lSDs face some tough decisions. Local sources of revenue for all lSDs are greater than state and federal sources combined and local taxes provide the largest share of local lSD revenue. This phenomenon has drastic implications in the state’s largest lSDs. Their varied demographic and socioeconomic characteristics combine to create challenges that may not be solved without funding policy changes at the state level. Presently, local tax differences hinder the equalization of ISO funding. Revenue from state and federal grants must be supplemented with local sources if the variance in per-pupil revenue is to be narrowed. The traditional problem of fiscal disparities, caused by different levels of property wealth across lSDs may be the foundation for the revenue inequality seen throughout this analysis. Moreover, differing levels of wealth within an lSD 70 may obstruct the passage of ISO millages. Residents in high property wealth communities may be less likely to support tax increases as they recognize that their money goes to subsidize lower wealth areas of the same lSD. Further investigation into the tax structures that generate revenue for lSDs may be in order. The question of educational adequacy is one that needs an answer. Wayne RESA, the ISO with the largest enrollment, faces a daunting task with their combination of high poverty, low achievement, and low funding. A large- scale effort is needed to assist the failing schools in Wayne RESA. The types of programs that are needed to increase achievement in Wayne RESA’s local districts require funding policy changes at the state level. Without such changes, locals will be left on their own when addressing many of the state and federal requirements aimed at increasing educational adequacy. The lSDs with the most students attending failing schools are not necessarily the lSDs with the lowest per-pupil revenue. On the contrary, seven of the nine lSDs with more than ten percent of their students attending failing schools have more revenue per pupil than the state average. On the other hand, the lSDs with the most students receiving free or reduced lunch due to low socio- economic status spend the Ieast per-pupil in almost every fund for programs and services. The biggest problem for most of Michigan’s lSDs may be one of seeking programmatic changes utilizing current educational resources. In many cases, the programming problems that lSDs face are not necessarily borne of inadequate resources. Instead, the issue is one of changing priorities in order to 71 build capacity in the areas of need as defined by the state and federal government. The way that organizations choose to spend their money often reveals their preferences and priorities. Statewide, lSDs allocate most of their financial resources to instruction and instructional support programs for their member districts. Even in the cooperative education fund, the programs that receive the most funding are those that provide services directly to the communities that the lSDs serve. This premise supports the claim that lSDs exist to provide services to the schools and communities they serve. When per-pupil expenditures are considered in light of demographic and economic characteristics, the pattern that emerges mirrors the situation that is uncovered in the analysis of revenue. The lSDs with large enrollments, which are mostly located in metropolitan areas, fall short in the amount of per-pupil expenditure as compared to lSDs with smaller total enrollments. Similarly, lSDs with the smallest enrollments also spend less, per-pupil, then their larger counterparts. The per-pupil expenditure for lSDs with the largest percentage of economically disadvantaged students is an area of concern. These lSDs have the lowest per-pupil expenditure in three of the four funds analyzed. In the future, as lSDs allocate resources to meet state and federal mandates, policy makers must also consider equalizing the expenditures on programs aimed at meeting these mandates. The freedom that lSDs have in making local programming decisions is also part of the problem. If lSDs continue to fund 72 programs as they have in the past, the problems and priorities of the present will not necessarily be addressed. The fiscal disparities that have historically hindered the quest for equal educational opportunity across local districts are apparently a problem for Michigan lSDs as well. According to the National Research Council (1999), there has been substantial emphasis on reducing fiscal disparities over the last 40 years. Although this ideology is rooted in a quest for equality, unless these efforts include a focus on developing capacity, the gains in equal educational opportunity that are sought may not be fulfilled. Seeking ways to diminish fiscal. differences across lSDs will equip lSDs to meet the challenges brought about by federal and state mandates. The Michigan Department of Education has been attempting to diminish the differences in content expectations, graduation requirements, and ultimately student achievement across all the state’s schools. Likewise, policy makers may need to focus on shrinking differences in financial capacity across lSDs so that these agencies may continue to be education’s “invisible partner” for districts and students in the future. 73 APPENDIX A State Aid Section and Description for Revenue Received Through Michigan State School Aid State Major Revenue Aid DESCRIPTION Fm“ Class 33;: Suffix Section Code Code 1 1f Non-Durant Settlement General 312 309 0000 119 Non-Durant Debt Service Debt 312 309 0000 11j School Bond Redemption Debt 312 308 0000 22a Proposa_l___A Obligation General 311 101 0010 22b Discretionary Payment General 311 101 0010 22c Equity Payment General 311 101 0010 22d Isolated District General 311 101 0010 24 Court Placed Children General! Special 312 103 0000 Ed 24a Juvenile Detention General/ Facilities Special 312 103 0000 Ed 240 Challenge Program General/ Special 312 103 0000 Ed 26a Renaissance Zone General! Voc E d lSpec 321 105 i 0000 Ed .. __..-..____._.......-........ 29 Declining Enrollment General 311 101 ’ 0010 31 a At Risk-«Children General 312 306 0020 31a(6) Teen Health Centers General 312 371 0000 31 a(7) Vision/Hearing Screening General 312 7 372 0000 31a(8) Mercy Education Project General 312 373 0000 31c Children of Incarcerated Parentsm General 312 374 ' 0000 31d School Lunch School I Programs Lunch 312 310 0110 31f School Breakfast School 312 31 1 l 01 10 _ Lunch _32c Early Childhood General 312 321 0100 -_. 74 State Aid Section and Description for Revenue Received Through Michigan State School Aid State Major Revenue Aid DESCRIPTION Fm” Class 3:": Suffix Section Code Code 32b Great Start/ECID Grants General 312 343 0100 32d(1) School Readiness General 312 340 0100 32j Great Start-[SD 0-5 General 312 343 0100 32m Book-a-Month Program General 312 337 0000 34 Early Intervening Program General 312 338 0100 41 Bilingual Education General 312 307 0040 51a(2) Specral Ed Foundations Specral 312 202 0120 ISO Ed 51a(3) Special Ed Hold Special Harmless lSD Ed 312 202 i 0120 51a(6) Special Ed Rule General! Changes Special 312 202 0120 51a(8) Special Ed Center 1' Special ‘ 9...- Program lSD Ed 312 202 0120 51a(12) Specral Ed-Foundatlons Specral 312 202 0120 lSD Ed 51c Spec Ed Headlee General! Special 312 202 0120 Ed 538(5) Special Ed-53a _ General 312 203 0120 54 Spec Ed- Sch for Special Deaf/Blind lSD Ed , 31? 204 012° 56 ISO Specral Ed Millage Spggial I 312 202 0120 57 Adv. & Accelerated Learning General 312 333 0080 57a lntl. Baccalaureate Program Grants General 312 333 0080 61a(1) Voc Ed Added Cost (3:21le 312 344 0160 61a(2) Voc Ed Admin Gigeéajw 312 g 344 0160 61a(3) Voc Ed lSD Hold = GeneralN Harmless _ oc Ed 312 4 344 0160 62 ISO Voc Ed Millagewm Voc Ed 312 345 0160 64 Health/Sci. Middle GeneralN l College Pro. oc Ed 312 350 0160 75 State Aid Section and Description for Revenue Received Through Michigan State School Aid State Major Revenue Aid DESCRIPTION Fund Class 33;: Suffix Section Code Code 65 Pre-College Engineering General 312 351 0000 74(2) Bus Driver Safety General 312 397 0000 74(4) School Bus Inspections General 312 398 0000 81(1) lSD General Formula GeneralN oc Ed/Spec 311 106 0010 Ed 99 Math/Science General 312 328 0070 99° 5992“” S “F“ ' General 312 328 0070 District Funding 99d Automatic External Defribrillators General 312 361 0000 99h First Robotics General 312 349 0000 104(1) Assessments - State General 312 348 0000 107 Adult Ed Participants General 312 331 0030 Source: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/saacct03_45776_7.pdf 76 APPENDIX B Federal Revenue, State Accounting Code, Catalog Of Federal Domestic Assistance Number and Account Name/Description 3:}: Nifnobtr Account Name/Description 601 84.010a Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAS 602 84.010a Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAS — Carryover 603 84.011 Titlel, Part C: Education of Migrant Children 604 84.011 Title I, Part C. Education of Migrant Children— Carryover 605 84.348 Title I, Accountability Grant 61 0 84.01 1 Tech IIQIQQXQIIQIIEDQG 613 84.011 Miggant Summer Program 616 84.013 Title I - Part I Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and youth who are neglected, delinquent or at risk of dropout 617 84.010b Title I Comprehensive School Reform 621 84.298 Title V, Part A: Innovative Programs 622 84.298 Title V, PartA: Innovative Programs Carryover 631 Education for Economic Recovery Act (EESA) P. L. 98- 377 Title II 632 (EESA) - Carryover ._....-_._-_.-___.. 633 84.340 Class Size Reduction- 635 84.196 Homeless Grants 636 See State Code 779 655 17.207 Employment Services 656 84.002a Trade Adjustment Assistance wwwwwww 657 84.002a Welfare to Work - ... 658 84.002a WIA-Adult 659 84.002a WIA Dislocated Worker 660 17.259 WIA— Youth Activities (Formula) 661 84.002a WIA - Incumbent Worker Incentive 662 84.002a “Reed” Act _____ 667 84.199 School to Work- ( Not in Current CFDA) __ 668 17.255 WIA Grants (Not in Current CFDA) 669 84.002a WIA Family Literacy Grant- 671 84.002a WIA -Adult Basic Education- Instruction 672 j 84.002a WIA -Adu|t Basrc Education - lnstruction- Carryover 673 I 84.002a WIA -Adult BaSic Education- State Leadership _ 674 84.002a WIA Adult BaSic Education- State Leadership- Carryover 675 84.002a WIA Adult Basic Education- Institutional Research 77 32;: NianbAer Account Name/Description 676 84.002a WIA Adult Basic Education - Institutional Research - Carryover 681 EDGE - Federal Share 682 84.041 Impact Aid (Direct) 683 93.576 Refugee Children School Impact Program 684 84.365a Title III, Part A: English Langjge Acquisition 689 National Diffusion Network 690 93.575 School Age Children 691 93.575 School Age Children - Carryover 692 Outcome Indicators 693 Outcome Indicators - Carryover 694 84.186b Safe and Drug Free Governor’s Discretion 695 93.586 Teen Pregrivancy Prevention 696 93.778 Drug Free Grants (Medical Assistance Program) 697 93.778 Drug Free Grants - Carryover (Medical Assistance Program) _ 698 84.184 Title IV, Part A: Safe and Drug Free Schools - Community Service Grants 699 84.186a Title IV, Part A: Safe and Drug Free Schools State and Communities 700 84.184c Community Services for Expelled or Suspended Students 701 ' Title IVA Social Security Act 702 Title II Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act 703 Title IV Civil Rights 705 Neighborhood Youth Corp. (Score) 707 Title II OEO - Follow Through 709 Model Cities 711 Office of Criminal Justice 713 Title IVA P. L. 922- 318 Indian Elementary, Secondary 715 Title III - OAA Older American Act — Food 717 Title VII - OAA OIOer American Act - Food 719 Title I - P. L. 81 -874 Operations 720 Title I - P. L. 81—874 Disaster Assistance 721 Title I - PL. 81-815 Construction 723 93.600 Title I - O.E.O. — Head start 725 Title IX - Equal Rights Amendment 729 Title VII - Bilingual Education (Direct) 731 84.360 Drop Out Prevention Programs 13L i U.S.O.E. Indo-Chinese M 741 E.S.A.A. Title VII 743 Teacher Corp. 744 ... R.O.T.C. (Direct) _ M ~ m 746 Ethnic Heritage Studies 78 3:}: Nianbtr Account Name/Description 749 84.351 Arts in Education 750 National Institute for Education — Research and Development 751 Professional Development- Career Planning 755 84.181a IDEA Part C Infant and Toddler - State Discretionary Project 757 84.181a IDEA Part C Infant and Toddler - Formula Grant 758 84.181a IDEA Part C Infant and Toddler - Formula Grant - Carryover 759 Enerngssistance 761 84. 366brWMathematics and Science Partnership 762 84. 281 Title II Part A 763 84.281 Title II Part A— Carryover 764 84.367a Title II, Part A: Teacher, Principal Training and Recruitment 765 84.332a Title I, Part F: Comprehensive School Reform 766 84. 367b Title II, Part A Improving Teacher Quality 767 84. 357a Readirrg First 768 84. 358b Title VI, Part B: Rural and Low Income Schools 769 84.336b Teacher Quality Enhancement (Direct) 770 84.060 Title VII Indian Education (Direct) 771 ACT- Mediation and Conciliation Service 772 ProjeCt SAVE (Students Against Violence in Education)_ 773 .. Nutrition Education Training - 774 Professional Development - Tech Assistance for _____________ , , Accreditation 775 93.938 H Competitive Mini Grant to Revise HS HIV/STD Prevention w776 84.2870 Title IV Part B, After School Learning Center 777 93.558 Temp. Asst For Needy Families TANF _. 778 93.575 Childcare and Development Block Grant 779 84.282A Charter School Grant 780 84.213 Title I, Part B, Even Start Family Literacy 781 10.550 USDA Commodities 782 10.550 USDA Commodities— Bonus 783 93.556 Safe Families Strong Children 801 84.027a IDEA Special Education — Formula Grants to lSDs 802 84.027a IDEA Special Education — Formula Grants to lSDs Carryover 805 84.173a . IDEA Pre School Incentive Formula Grants to lSDs 806 84.173a IDEA Pre School Incentive — Formula Grants to lSDs Carryover __ 79 32;: Nifnobgr Account Name/Description 808 84.027a ’ IDEA Part B Training, Materials, and Technology 810 84.027a IDEA Part B State Discretionary Projects 812 84.027a IDEA Part B Transition Services 813 84.324 IDEA-Model Demonstration for Children with Disabilities; Research and Innovation to Improve Services to Children 815 84.181 Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 816 84.027a IDEA Capacity Building Grant 817 94.004 Learn and Serve School Based Services (Fellows) 818 93.778 Medical Assistance Programs 819 84.215L SmaIIer Learning Community Grants 820 94.007 Americorps (Planning and Program Development Grants) 821 84.358a Small Rural School Achievement - (Direct from Federal Govt) 822 93.577 CHILD Grant (Communities Helping to Increase Learning Development) 823 84.215k Fund for Improvement of. Education _. 824 84.215e Fund for Improvement of Education Elementary School Counselors 825 84.215v Partnership in Character Education 850 10.553 Natl School Breakfast 851 10.555 Natl School Lunch and Snack Program 852 10.556 Natl School Lunch Special Milk 853 10.558 Child Care Food Program 854 10.565 Commodity Supplemental Food Program 855 10.568 Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) 856 10.565 CNP Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pilot .. - 857 10.561 State Match Grants for Food Stamp Program 858 10.559 Summer Lunch Program 859 10.551 Michigan Nutrition Network through MSU Extension 869 10.664 Forest Stewardship OutreaOh & Education - 870 10.665 Schools and Roads Grants to States 870 10.665 Schools and Roads Grants to States 871 47.076 National Science Foundation 872 45.025 National Endowment for the Arts 873 83.544 FEMA 874 84.215x Teaching American History 875 84.215f Carol M. White Physical Education Grant 876 97.004 State Homeland Security Grant - State Domestic Preparedness 877 84.323 Personnel Development Collaborative 878 84.000 RIF- Reading is Fundamental 879 45.310 State Library Program 80 33;: "(5.???er Account Name/Description 880 17.245 Trade Adj. Assistance 881 93.571 Community Services Block Grant 882 84.310 Parent Information and Resources (PIRC) 883 16.710 Police Corp 884 17.267 Entrepreneurial Grant 885 81.119 State Energy Program 900 Local Tracking of Revenues That Need Clarification Source: h_ttp://12._46._2A5.173/pli/portal30/CATALOGFINQ ASSISTANCE PROGRAM [_) YN.show 81 APPENDIX C Sources of revenue into each fund Special Vocational Cooperative General Education Education Education Fund Fund Fund Fund Local Sources Taxes X X X Fees X X X X State Sources Categorical X X X X Unrestricted X X X X Federal Sources Categorical X X X X Unrestricted X X X 82 APPENDIX D Per-pupil Revenue for Each of the Four Funds for All Michigan lSDs Rev/Pupil Gen Spec. Ed Voc Ed Coop ISD Fund Fund Fund Ed Fund Allegan $273.78 $826.99 $319.24 $205.06 AIpena-Montmorency-Alcona $282.31 $952.08 $0.00 $0.00 Barry $220.81 $780.29 $0.00 $0.00 Bay-Arenac $261.36 $1 ,022.66 $497.25 $0.00 Berrien $416.01 $1,148.49 $0.00 $0.80 Branch $531.99 $1,553.78 $925.91 $0.00 C.0.0.R. $161.00 $790.02 $133.93 $11.57 Calhoun $253.14 $1 ,260.01 $285.04 $74.34 Charlevoix-Emmet $454.34 $1,271.77 $358.19 $0.00 Cheb-Otsego-Presque Isle $275.99 $896.98 $0.00 $0.00 Clare-Gladwin $573.77 $856.26 $0.00 $0.00 Clinton County $231.74 $1,154.86 $300.12 $0.00 Copper Country $497.83 ' $669.21 $0.00 $137.83 Delta-Schoolcraft $351.94 $750.56 $316.73 $73.95 Dickinson-Iron $339.82 $712.04 $311.81 $258.63 E. Upper Peninsula $357.18 $684.27 $0.00 $84.61 Eaton $264.16 $1,269.73 $345.27 $0.00 Genesee $203.06 $778.15 $186.17 $0.00 Gogebic—Ontonagon $323.66 $977.39 $290.08 $0.00 Gratiot-lsabella $154.84 $1 ,206.72 $0.00 $402.62 Hillsdale $265.25 $1,278.46 $193.02 $0.00 Huron $271.33 $1,668.85 $544.20 $119.40 lngham $211.99 $1 ,472.78 $221.04 $0.00 Ionia $281.63 $1,523.59 $161.29 $0.00 losco $271.64 $690.61 $192.30 $0.00 Jackson $324.71 $1,453.52 $420.00 $0.00 83 Per-pupil Revenue for Each of the Four Funds for All Michigan lSDs Rev/Pupil Gen Spec. Ed Voc Ed Coop ISD Fund Fund Fund Ed Fund Kalamazoo $705.59 $992.78 $0.00 $0.00 Kent $95.92 $1,747.75 $233.21 $5.22 Lapeer $190.47 $441.48 $355.58 $3.78 Lenawee $390.90 $1,381.46 $612.77 $0.00 Lewis Cass $454.91 $918.64 $0.00 $539.73 Livingston $241.59 $1,058.57 $0.00 $0.00 Macomb $184.53 $1,054.74 $0.00 $0.00 Manistee $323.50 $972.57 $74.88 $0.00 Marquette-Alger $513.67 $927.43 $0.00 $0.00 Mason-Lake $224.82 $1,412.68 $382.63 $0.00 Mecosta-Osceola $179.86 $1,255.36 $382.81 $8.09 Menominee ' $356.80 $942.05 $0.00 $0.00 Midland County $173.31 $824.35 $0.00 $0.00 Monroe $481 .74 $1 ,446.83 $0.00 $0.00 Montcalm $154.32 $1,005.90 $234.30 $0.00 Muskegon $241.56 $1,009.85 $231.46 $191.78 Newaygo $408.53 $929.01 $573.01 $0.00 Oakland $152.12 $1,063.92 $227.80 $0.00 Oceana $185.91 $847.83 $0.00 $0.00 Ottawa Area $173.35 $1,111.12 $301.63 $0.00 Saginaw $227.17 $1,056.75 $0.00 $117.17 Sanilac $148.37 $481.17 $490.36 $0.00 Shiawassee Regional $269.47 $1,200.96 $0.00 $0.00 St. Clair County $332.92 $925.89 $247.74 $0.00 St. Joseph County $179.08 $825.18 $238.73 $0.00 Traverse Bay Area $287.75 $1,334.75 . $325.68 $285.91 Tuscola $158.01 $1,426.04 $462.18 $31.03 Van Buren $360.70 $1,146.12 $515.42 $0.00 Washtenaw $107.12 $1 ,481 .58 $0.00 $0.00 84 Per-pupil Revenue for Each of the Four Funds for All Michigan 1805 Rev/Pupil Gen Spec. Ed Voc Ed Coop ISD Fund Fund Fund Ed Fund Wayne $75.78 $834.70 $0.00 $20.51 Wexford—Missaukee $197.51 $1,096.69 $591.14 $0.00 85 REFERENCES (2001). Michigans Intermediate School Districts, Leaders for Educational Excellence. Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators. Retrieved August 23, 2006 from http://wwwgomaisaorgl. (2006) Accounting for 2006-07 Revenue Received Through State School Aid. Retrieved November 18, 2006 from http://wwwmichiwgov/documents/saacct03 45776 7.pd_f Alexander, Kern and Salmon, Richard (1995). Public School Finance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ch. 9: “Structure of state systems of school finance.” Arfstrom, Kari M. (2004) Are ESAs Successful? The Research Says “Yesl”. Association of Education Service Agencies. Perspectives, Volume 10, Fall 2004. Arsen, David and Plank, David (2003). Michigan school finance under Proposal A, State control, local consequences. Michigan Statue University Education Policy Center. Retrieved October 22, 2005 from http://wwwepcmsu.edu/publications/publications.htm. Campbell, David (2001). Proving the Worth of ESAs: A Cost Efficiency Study for an ESD in Oregon. Association of Education Service Agencies. Perspectives, Volume 7, September 2001. Clubberly, ER (1934). Public education in the United States. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Dubble, Janet and Swengel, Kristen (2002). Virtual Learning: Success Through Collaboration. Association of Education Service Agencies. Perspectives, Volume 8, September 2002. Fox, James (1989). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 69-83. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from MOM/linksistororg. Guthrie, James W.; Michael W. Kirst; and Allan R. Odden (1990). Conditions of Education in Califomia, 1989. Berkeley, California: University of California, School of Education, Policy Analysis for California Education. Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education. 4th ed. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers. 86 McNally, Carolyn and Abdella, Mark (2004). The Role of Connecticut’s RESCs in School Improvement: A Case Study in Mathematics. Association of Education Service Agencies. Perspectives, Volume 10, Fall 2004. Michigan Department of Education (2007). 2005-06 Bulletin 1014 Michigan Public School Districts Ranked By Selected Financial Data. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ mde/B101406 193494 74m Miller, Van (1965). The public administration of American school systems. New York: The MacMilIan Company. Monk, David, Brent, Brent, and Roellke, Christopher (1996). Teacher Resource Use Within New York State Secondary Schools. Retrieved September 26, 2006 from http://ncesed.gov/pubs97/97535/97535e.asp National Research Council (1999). Making Money Matter: financing America ’3 schools. Committee on Educational Finance, Helen F. Ladd and Janet S. Hansen, editors. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Odden, Alan, and Picus, Lawrence (2004). School Finance: A Policy Perspective. New York: McGraw Hill. Ch. 6: “Allocation and use of funds at the district, school, and classroom levels.” Odden, Alan, Archibald, Sarah, Ferrninick, and Gross, Bethany (2003). Defining school-level expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Joumal of Education Finance. 28(3), Winter, p. 323-356. Rothstein, R., and K. H. Miles. 1995. Where’s the Money Gone? Changes in the Level and Composition of Education Spending. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Stanley, M. Craig (2003). Educational Collaboratives: Saving Tax Dollars for Massachusetts Schools. Association of Education Service Agencies. Perspectives, Volume 9, September 2003. ' Stephens, E. Robert and Keane, William G. (2005) The Educational Service Agency: American Education’s Invisible Partner. New York: University Press Stilwell, Ted (2004). Educational Agencies Are Essential to Improve Student Achievement. Association of Education Service Agencies. Perspectives, Volume 10, Fall 2004. 87 Thurston, L.M., and Roe, W.H. (1957). State school administration. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers. US Department of Labor (2001). Education Kit 2001 - Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Retrieved December 20, 2008 from http://wwwdolgov/odep. US. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education 2006, NCES 2006-071, Washington DC: US. Government Printing Office. Wilcox, Colleen B. and Sexton, Peter (2004). Meeting the New Requirements of No Child Left Behind. Association of Education Service Agencies. Perspectives, Volume 10, Fall 2004. 88 "'iililIIlIiIlIljil[IIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIS