Dividing the dollars

IPS’ new budget plan is supposed to give more money to poor schools. Here’s how it works.

PHOTO: Kelly Wilkinson / The Star
IPS School 79 has among the lowest per pupil funding in the district.

A year ago, Indianapolis Public Schools embarked on a radical change: Instead of patching together school budgets based on each school’s programs and challenges, district leaders decided to distribute money through a clear formula based on students’ needs.

The overarching principle was that schools with many poor students should get more from the district than schools with middle-class students — and that principals should get to decide how that money is spent.

Now, the district has revealed how each school fared under the new formula, used for the first time this year, and it’s apparent that the impact has been limited so far.

In large part, that’s because the district made efforts to ensure a smooth transition for schools used to a different way of doing things. The district is also still sending millions of dollars directly to schools based on their programming, not their students’ needs.

As a result, many schools with needy students still got less from the district than schools with more middle-class students, according to budget projections provided to Chalkbeat by the district.

For example, last year nearly half the students at School 79, also known as Carl Wilde, were learning English, and the district projected that 86 percent would be in poverty this year. Yet the neighborhood school on the west side has among the lowest per-student funding in the district. It was budgeted to receive $6,104 per student.

At the same time, the Center for Inquiry at School 70 serves a much less needy population, with a projected poverty rate of 42 percent. But the northside magnet school was budgeted to receive $7,438 per student.

10 highest funded schools per pupil in Indianapolis Public Schools

10 lowest funded schools per pupil in Indianapolis Public Schools

Data provided by Indianapolis Public Schools. Graphics by Sam Park.

Over the last decade, student-based allocation — also known as weighted student funding — has been embraced in urban districts across the country, including Boston, Chicago, and Denver. It’s also similar to the model that the Indiana legislature uses to decide how much districts get in state funding.

In part, the aim is to make sure districts send money to schools based on student needs rather than other factors, such as whether a band program is particularly beloved or a school has an influential parent organization.

It’s a problem Carole Craig, a retired IPS principal who is still a vocal advocate for educational equity, saw in action when she worked for the district. Without clear rules driving budget decisions, powerful principals and school communities would lobby for more, she said.

“It was political,” she added.

Student-based allocation is supposed to help solve that problem by creating budgets using rules and making it publicly transparent how much each school is getting and why. For IPS, that’s beginning to happen this year, with schools getting about 60 percent of their funding through the new allocation formula. The rest of their budgets are still being distributed outside that formula.

How much is your school getting per student?

(The per-student funding figures in this story include the money distributed through the student based allocation formula and other sources. The full allocations were provided to Chalkbeat by the district. Most innovation schools, which are managed by outside nonprofits or charter operators, are not receiving funding through the student-based allocation formula. The funding levels for those schools is available on the district website.)

But as the gap between School 79 and School 70 reveals, there are still big disparities in how much is spent per student. They exist because the school district, like others that have shifted to student-based budgeting, took steps to mute the transition to the new funding system.

The district limits how much budgets can grow or shrink so schools won’t lose too much money in one year, using what it’s calling “transition adjustments.” Plus the district is continuing to give schools extra money for many reasons beyond how many students they have and how needy those students are.

At the discretion of Superintendent Lewis Ferebee, the district is propping up the budgets of schools that have struggled academically. Schools are also getting extra money for programs such as Montessori that parents and students choose. The district is also budgeting nearly $1.3 million for schools that would struggle to operate without extra money, typically because of low enrollment.

Finally, the district is providing services outside the new funding formula for students in special education and those who are learning English, because there are legal requirements for meeting student needs. The district also distributes federal funds, which have specific rules, outside the formula.

The impact of all these choices is that some schools with incredibly high needs students are getting shortchanged.

The northside magnet, School 70, receives more than $288,000 in transition funding and nearly $56,000 to support its International Baccalaureate program, an academic approach that emphasizes inquiry-based learning. In contrast, School 79, the neighborhood school serving many immigrants on the west side, is losing out on more than $268,000 it would normally receive based on enrollment and student needs because of the transition adjustment.

Once the transition period is over, that means that School 79 could get a big bump in funding. But it also means that the longer the district takes, the more money the school will miss out on.

The new funding system is revealing funding differences that have long existed, said Craig. But she added, what’s important is what the district does next to make funding fairer.

“I’m going to believe since they’ve spent so much time doing this, there is a plan,” she said. But “how long is it going to take?”

District officials have said that the biggest challenge to student based allocation is declining state revenue. The district simply doesn’t have that much to dole out.

That could change in the future. District officials recently announced that they would likely ask voters to approve a property tax increase of $92 million per year — which adds up to almost $2,900 per student.

It’s not clear how the district would use that cash, in the event that the funding request makes it to voters and they approve.

One of the top priorities, however, is increasing teacher pay, which would likely spread the money across schools without prioritizing those that have comparatively low funding.

“I think it will benefit the climate at every school in the district,” said school board president Mary Ann Sullivan. “It won’t just make things better for a chosen few.”

District leaders also emphasize that the current funding model is not set in stone. It will be reviewed each year, and leaders could decide to change the formula or eliminate some of the outside pools of funding. The school board is expected to review the funding formula for next year this week.

Ferebee told Chalkbeat that he didn’t know how long it would take for the district to increase its use of student-based allocation.

“We want to make sure that we are smart and strategic about how we implement the model,” he said.

Dividing the dollars

Millions of extra dollars go to Indianapolis magnet schools that have fewer poor students

PHOTO: Shaina Cavazos
Students in IPS School 91's multi-age first-, second- and third-grade classroom work on math activities.

Indianapolis Public Schools leaders recently overhauled school budgets in a bid to give more money to schools with poor students. At the same time, they quietly sent more than $6.5 million extra to 17 schools — including the district’s most affluent campuses.

That money went to special programs that often attract middle-class families in the form of about $700 extra on average per student, according to a Chalkbeat analysis. That’s substantially more than the $500 bonus the district gives to schools for each student in poverty.

Those dollars are significant in a district strapped for cash: Spread out evenly, the $6.5 million could send all schools about $250 more per student.

The bonuses also highlight a challenge district leaders often face when trying to make school funding fairer: not alienating families at schools that have long received different resources — and who might otherwise choose private schools or the suburbs.

Critics say the bonuses could work against the district’s goal of directing more resources to schools that need the most help.

“If you put more money into higher-achieving schools, your budget strategy, whether you will say it out loud or not, is to expand the achievement gap,” said Marguerite Roza, a Georgetown University professor who studies school finance.

District leaders defend the extra money as essential for special programs — which have focus areas such as Montessori, the arts, or career and technical education — because they cost more to run and would be harmed if they lost funding.

“We did not want to adversely impact the operations of those programs,” Superintendent Lewis Ferebee said.

But giving schools funding based on their programs is one thing that IPS’s new budget system was supposed to prevent. Until this year, the district awarded funds to schools based on an assortment of reasons, including the programs schools offer. In theory, the new student-based budgeting process, on the other hand, is supposed to funnel money to schools based on the needs of individual students.

Read: IPS’ new budget plan is supposed to give more money to poor schools. Here’s how it works.

The district designed some extra money to be temporary under the new budget plan so that schools wouldn’t experience a sudden drop in funding. But officials have not said whether the bonuses to special programs will lessen or disappear over time.

The 17 schools receiving extra money run the gamut. Their demographics vary, and some of the schools are low-performing. But on average, the passing rates on state tests are significantly higher than district averages, while the average poverty rate is far lower — 58 percent versus 78 percent. The amount of money they receive also varies widely.

(Click here to see Chalkbeat’s full analysis, which combined choice programs that do not receive extra money with the district’s other campuses. The projected poverty rate provided by the district does not include students in prekindergarten or self-contained special education classrooms, though those students are included in the total enrollment.)

Unlike neighborhood schools, families choose them, and the vast majority accept students by lottery.

Ferebee said he does not see spending more on choice programs as taking money away from other schools. He noted that the district also gives extra money to schools that have historically struggled. Several schools in a district-led turnaround effort called a transformation zone, for example, also get extra funding.

Plus, all families in the district have access to choice programs, he added.

“I would be more concerned if we didn’t open those programs up to all students, and didn’t provide transportation to all students,” Ferebee said. “But we do.”

The district has also worked to make sure less affluent families have access to choice programs. Last fall, the IPS board reduced the number of families who get priority because they live near a school and reserved seats for families who apply later in the year because data showed low-income families were more likely to apply late.

But for now, many of the schools that get extra money for choice programs are far more likely to educate middle-class students.

That’s likely a reflection of a key challenge for IPS and other urban districts. In states like Indiana, where schools get more money for each student they enroll, winning over parents is essential to staying financially viable. But the kind of programming — such as Montessori and International Baccalaureate schools — that can attract families who might choose private schools or move to the suburbs can be expensive because it often requires extra staff or training.

Carrie Stewart, cofounder of Afton Partners, which consults with districts on financial strategies. She said it is common for districts to give extra funding to schools with special programs.

Schools that offer the IB program, for example, must meet strict staffing and training requirements. “It’s very hard to run them at the same price tag as a typical school,” she said, which means they need more funding.

“Is that fair? I mean, I don’t know,” she added. But if the district doesn’t offer the programs at all, it could lose families to private schools, Stewart said. “Then everybody loses because the district will lose money.”

Amendment 73

Here’s how some districts would spend their share of a $1.6 billion tax hike for education

PHOTO: Katie Wood/The Denver Post
Teacher Mandy Rees talks to her middle school students at Bruce Randolph School on Wednesday, March 1, 2017.

If Colorado voters this November approve a $1.6 billion tax increase to benefit schools, several metro-area districts are pledging to spend part of their share to boost teacher pay.

Raising teacher salaries is an idea that’s gaining political popularity, fueled by teacher protests around the country and here in Colorado, where education funding is below the national average and several recent studies have found teachers are dramatically underpaid.

School boards in at least 70 of the state’s 178 school districts – including Denver, Aurora, Jeffco, Adams 14, Westminster, and Sheridan – have passed resolutions in support of the statewide tax increase, called Amendment 73. Some have also specified what their districts would spend the money on.

Amendment 73 would raise personal income taxes for residents making more than $150,000 per year. It would also raise the corporate income tax and make adjustments to property taxes. In separate ballot measures, districts across Colorado – including Aurora, Jeffco, and Westminster – are asking voters to raise local taxes to support education, as well.

In addition to teacher pay, all three large metro districts named expanding preschool as a priority if Amendment 73 passes. Aurora listed decreasing student-to-teacher ratios, while Denver listed reducing class sizes. Denver and Jeffco said they’d also spend more on mental health support for students.

Click the links below to read the resolutions in their entirety. We’ve also included bulleted summaries of the spending priorities in Denver, Jeffco, and Aurora.

A Denver teacher gave an evocative example to the school board Thursday of why the district should prioritize support for students’ mental health by hiring more psychologists and social workers, something it has already begun doing with money from local tax increases.

Here is what the teacher, Michelle Garrison, had to say.

There’s all kinds of facts and figures about the types of trauma students go through in their daily lives. … But when I really thought about how to tell this story, I wanted to share with you some things about how this manifests and looks in a school. … Here’s some things that have happened in the past three days.

Three different third-grade girls crying on three different days because one student with severe emotional needs keeps hitting them and pulling their hair.

Five first-graders crying because another student was sprinting around the room grabbing and crumpling everyone’s art project, ruining their work.

One seventh-grade boy who sleeps soundly, drool and all, every day this week and tells me he can’t sleep at night because he’s afraid someone is going to take his little sister.

Attending a meeting in which we were told to offer coloring sheets as our sole intervention for a boy who has been hitting students with blunt objects and jabbing at their throats.

Attending a trauma-informed practice (training) of which the thesis was, “Don’t yell at kids because they might have really messed-up things going on at home.” I’m not really sure what else to do about what they do, though.

The police have been called to our building three times.

Over 20 middle school students running in the halls, sprinting in and out of classrooms, running and sliding on the floor, blaring music over a Bluetooth speaker. It took 15 minutes and five adults to get them back into classrooms.

I could go on. This is half of what I wrote down. I think you get the point.

This is despite a school full of wonderful adults, wonderful administration, and really wonderful students. But this is the reality of what happens.

I was trained as an art teacher. I do not know what to do to help these students.

Click here to read Denver Public Schools’ resolution on Amendment 73. The $1.6 billion in revenue that the tax increase would generate would be divvied up between school districts, and Denver officials said they expect the district’s share will be $150 million each year.

The resolution says the district will prioritize spending the money on:

  • Increasing pay to attract and retain high-quality teachers and staff
  • Better supporting student mental health needs
  • “Targeted funding and strategies to better support student groups with higher needs, including efforts to reduce class sizes”
  • Expanding early childhood education opportunities

The resolution notes that the largest portion of the funds should be spent on teacher pay, though it doesn’t specify a dollar amount or percentage.

Click here to read Aurora Public Schools’ resolution. It says the district will prioritize:

  • Adding school-based instructional supports, reducing student-teacher ratios, and establishing a clear career ladder to recruit and retain high-quality teachers
  • Enhancing preschool by increasing access, expanding quality programming, and increasing compensation for preschool staff
  • Increasing compensation and benefits to maintain a competitive place in the market

Click here to read Jeffco Public Schools’ resolution. In addition to naming priorities, it specifies what percentage of the district’s share of the funding it would spend on each one.

  • 50 percent to attract and retain quality teachers and staff
  • 15 percent to lower class sizes and staffing shortages
  • 10 percent to add mental health support and counseling, and school security
  • 10 percent to expand early childhood education
  • 7.5 percent to expand career and technical options, as well as science, technology, engineering, and math options
  • 7.5 percent to buy classroom learning materials, technology, and supplies, and offset student fees

Click here to read Westminster’s resolution, here to read Adams 14’s resolution, and here to read Sheridan’s resolution.

Westminster and Adams 14 didn’t suggest how the funds should be used. Sheridan included some commitments, but they aren’t very specific. They include spending on strategies to close gaps in test scores between different groups of students, and maintaining “adequate district operational functions.”

The Colorado Association of School Boards is collecting district resolutions, and you can find more of them here.

Colorado voters have twice before rejected statewide tax increases for education. At both the school and municipal level, voters are much more receptive to local tax increases. The Colorado Association of School Boards, which supports Amendment 73, is urging its members around the state to be as specific as possible about how they’ll spend additional funds. An online guide encourages school boards to “engage stakeholders” and “hold public discussions.”

Opponents of the tax increase have criticized the lack of specificity in how new resources will be spent. They say that spending more money doesn’t guarantee students will do better in school.

But Lisa Weil, head of Great Education Colorado, a major backer of Amendment 73, said school districts had to decide on their own how to cut during the Great Recession, and they should get to decide now how to restore the money.

“In 10 and 20 and 30 years of cuts, the legislature has never said how to cut,” Weil said. “They’ve left that to local communities, and local communities have done what they can to keep cuts out of the classroom and keep serving kids. There is no better way to ensure accountability than to put these decisions in the hands of people who are accountable to voters. They know the community, and it’s where advocates have the most opportunity to make a difference.”

Chalkbeat staffers Yesenia Robles and Erica Meltzer contributed to this report.