April 2, 2009
The White House
President Barack Obama1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
As I write to you today, I am on the verge of having to make some very difficult budget decisions that will impact Missouri’s largest fully accredited school district. I am superintendent of Springfield Public Schools and, due to current economic conditions, the positive momentum we have achieved in recent years is at risk of stalling.
We have reduced class sizes, improved teacher salaries and upgraded the quality of our aging buildings, but we are currently facing a budget deficit of $4.7 million, in large part due to declining revenue this fiscal year.
I am somewhat surprised to find myself in this position considering the promise and hope you inspired in our community when you announced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act earlier this year. My optimism has been replaced by confusion since we have yet to see any of the dollars promised for saving teachers’ jobs and modernizing our school buildings.
Last week I had the unpleasant task of informing 3,000 dedicated employees that we are forced to cut $4.2 million in expenditures immediately. Each day that passes without receiving stimulus funds makes it more and more apparent that we will be forced to make further drastic cuts for 2009-2010.
Millions of Americans are struggling and making similarly tough financial choices. We believe that you intended for your bold act in January to not only invest in education but to bolster our faltering economy and create jobs for our friends and neighbors here in southwest Missouri.
Mr. President, our community and Springfield Public Schools stand ready to assist you in making that promise come true. Our district is prepared with a plan of action to invest the dollars promised in our community to save jobs, create work opportunities and generate demand for raw materials and supplies. In exchange for that investment, we pledge to be accountable for every dollar spent and to demonstrate the positive impact of these funds.
Here is our immediate plan of action given the funding:
Address critical facility needs by making our 53 schools safer, greener and better places for children to learn. We have identified 150 improvement projects totaling $66 million that can be immediately implemented. These shovel-ready projects will mean jobs right here in Springfield for a construction industry beleaguered by the housing slowdown.
Preserve teaching jobs to keep class sizes down and retain quality teachers in our classrooms. It is vital that we not only preserve but promote the quality of education to ensure our graduates, and ultimately our country, are equipped to compete in an increasingly global economy.
Move forward with important, innovative initiatives we have started in this district to meet ever-changing student needs. These are designed to prepare at-risk high school students to move directly into high-demand professions like nursing and diesel mechanics, and to promote fifth-graders’ focus on environmental science, equipping them to potentially create solutions to the tough environmental issues facing this country. These are just two examples of quality programs this district must maintain to meet the educational challenges of tomorrow.
While we still have hope that we can do our part in putting America on the road to recovery, we need the cooperation of the Missouri legislature. As of today, not one penny of investment has been made available to Springfield Public Schools via your initiative.
I am calling for leadership at the state and federal level to remain true to the spirit of your directive and enable this district, and all public school districts in Missouri, to do their part to secure America’s future with sound investments in our children, our schools and our community.
Respectfully,
Dr. Norm Ridder
Monday, April 6, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
TABOR Passes From House After Third Reading
HJR 23, commonly known as TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights),was passed out of the House on March 12 and will move to the Senate for consideration. If passed this constitutional amendment would create an appropriations and revenue growth lid for the state that would be the sum of inflation plus population growth. Both MSBA and MNEA have expressed very grave concerns over what TABOR could mean to funding of public education. (Please see earlier post for additional information on TABOR)
Superintendent Dr. Ridder, having experienced TABOR in Colorado, has expressed great concern over passage of this type of legislatilon as well.
The following is a list of the representatives (Springfield Reps. denoted in blue) and how they voted on TABOR:
THIRD READING OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
HCS HJR 23, relating to limits on state appropriations, was taken up by Representative Icet.
On motion of Representative Icet, HCS HJR 23 was read the third time and passed by the following vote:
AYES: 082
Allen
Bivins
Brandom
Brown 30
Brown 149
Bruns
Burlison
Cooper
Cox
Cunningham
Davis
Day
Deeken
Denison
Dethrow
Dieckhaus
Diehl
Dixon
Dougherty
Dugger
Dusenberg
Emery
Ervin
Faith
Fisher 125
Flanigan
Flook
Franz
Funderburk
Gatschenberger
Grisamore
Guernsey
Hobbs
Hoskins 121
Icet
Jones 89
Jones 117
Keeney
Kingery
Koenig
Kraus
Lair
Largent
Leara
Lipke
Loehner
McGhee
McNary
Munzlinger
Nieves
Parkinson
Parson
Pratt
Riddle
Ruestman
Ruzicka
Sander
Sater
Schaaf
Schad
Scharnhorst
Schlottach
Schoeller
Self
Silvey
Smith 14
Smith 150
Stevenson
Stream
Sutherland
Thomson
Tilley
Tracy
Viebrock
Wasson
Wells
Wilson 119
Wilson 130
Wood
Yates
Zerr
Mr Speaker
NOES: 078
Atkins
Aull
Biermann
Bringer
Brown 50
Brown 73
Burnett
Calloway
Carter
Casey
Chappelle-Nadal
Colona
Corcoran
Curls
El-Amin
Englund
Fallert
Fischer 107
Frame
Grill
Guest
Harris
Hodges
Holsman
Hoskins 80
Hughes
Hummel
Jones 63
Kander
Kelly
Kirkton
Komo
Kratky
Kuessner
Lampe
LeBlanc
LeVota
Liese
Low
McClanahan
McDonald
McNeil
Meadows
Meiners
Molendorp
Morris
Nance
Nasheed
Norr
Oxford
Pace
Pollock
Quinn
Roorda
Rucker
Salva
Scavuzzo
Schieffer
Schoemehl
Schupp
Shively
Skaggs
Spreng
Storch
Swinger
Talboy
Todd
Vogt
Wallace
Walsh
Walton Gray
Webb
Webber
Wildberger
Witte
Wright
Yaeger
Zimmerman
PRESENT: 000
ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 003
Nolte
Still
Weter
NEA Legislative Update
The following is from Missouri National EducationAssociation
BUDGET
The House Budget Committee considered numerous amendments to the budget bills (HBs 1-12) Allen Icet. As noted previously, Budget Chair Allen Icet has inserted federal stimulus and stabilization funds into the elementary and secondary education budget bill (HB 2) and removed a total of roughly $900 million in general revenue from the budget process. Committee members are not allowed to consider this revenue in the budget process, so all amendments to increase must be accompanied by a like decrease. Rep. Sara Lampe offered an amendment to restore $5 million in professional development funding by reducing formula transportation funding. The amendment was defeated. Other amendments offered to restore funding for Parents as Teachers and the Scholars and Fine Arts Academies were also defeated.
The Association believes that the current House budget process is fundamentally flawed. Proper decisions for budgeting and balancing priorities can not be properly done without having all the available funding on the table for consideration. Missouri NEA supports incorporating federal economic stimulus and stabilization revenues into next year's budget in a careful way to maintain vital public services, while also seeking to address the structural budget deficit, improve the fairness of the state tax code and ensure adequate funding for public education and other vital public services.
PROTECTING MISSOURI'S FAIR AND IMPARTIAL COURTS
The Senate Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee will hear SJR 9 (Jim Lembke) on March 12. The SJR would revise Missouri's Non-Partisan Court Plan in a number of ways. Upon passage of this amendment, the terms of all members of the Appellate Judicial Commission and Circuit Judicial Commission would automatically expire. A new Governor could remove members of the commissions who were appointed by the previous Governor. These provisions will make the judicial selection process more political.
The SJR would also force all applicants to be publicly disclosed and require all interviews to be public meetings. This is likely to reduce the pool of qualified applicants, since clients or employers may be affected adversely by the knowledge that an attorney is considering applying for a court appointment.
The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan is essential for the state to select qualified judges in a way that limits partisan politics in the selection process. This non-partisan plan is so effective that a majority of states have adopted some version of the “Missouri Plan.” Fair and impartial courts are vital to democracy and the preservation of our rights, including the fundamental right of access to a great public school. The Association opposes the Joint Resolution and urges the General Assembly to refrain from any changes in the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan.
HOUSE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
In addition to hearing the scheduled bills on March 11, the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee voted out three bills as Consent Bills:
1) HB 922 (Joe Smith) to require school districts to adopt policies on allergy prevention and response, with priority given to addressing potentially deadly food-borne allergies.
2) HB 659 (Gary Dusenberg) to revise the laws regarding special administrative boards appointed for lapsed school districts. In part the bill sets up a structure for moving away from an unelected, administrative board and back to an elected board over time by electing new board members.
3) HCS/HB 304 (Rodney Schad) to specify what constitutes a significant difference in the time involved in transporting students for the purposes of elections to change school district boundaries.
The Committee was also scheduled to consider and vote on HB 387 (Robert Wayne Cooper), but the committee postponed the vote on the bill until after spring break. HB 387 creates a voluntary Quality Rating System for early child care facilities. Missouri NEA supports the bill.
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
The Senate Education Committee met on March 11 and heard three of the four scheduled bills, but the hearing for SB 373 (Rob Mayer) was postponed. SB 373 creates procedures for open enrollment of public school students across school district boundary lines.
The committee also voted out two bills:
1) SCS/SB 94 (Jolie Justus) to increase the eligibility limits on state child care subsidies. The Association strongly supports this effort to help low income, working parents model the value and dignity of work while making sure their children have access to quality early childhood instruction and child care. The SCS allows the qualification level to still be set by appropriations, and then adds a sliding scale up to 45% above the percentage of Federal Poverty Level set by appropriations. The SCS also started with the Quality Rating System language from SB 4 (Charlie Shields), but the QRS language was removed by a committee amendment offered by Sen. Scott Rupp.
2) SCS/SB 175 (Eric Schmitt) to require DESE to produce and distribute a guidance document known as "The Parents' Bill of Rights" for parents of children with an individualized education program.
NO TAX JUSTICE IN "FAIR TAX"
The House Tax Reform Committee approved HCS/HBs 814 & 318 on March 11 by a party-line vote of 7-5. The HCS would eliminate the state income tax and replace it with a state sales tax. The resolution would make Missouri's tax code profoundly less fair, less adequate and less sustainable. Missouri NEA strongly opposes this type of regressive tax change that will keep the Missouri from obtaining the revenue it needs to invest in public schools, public higher education and other vital public services like healthcare.
SENATE DEBATES MORE BUSINESS TAX CREDITS
The Senate began floor debate on SCS/SBs 45 et al. (David Pearce) relating to business tax credits on March 11. SCS/SBs 45 et al. lifts or raises the cap on several business tax credits and reinstates some that have expired. The exact impact of these tax credit changes is unknown, since some currently capped programs, such as the Quality Jobs Program, would no longer have any limit on the amount of tax credits.
The Association strongly urges the legislature to maintain limits on all tax credits and to ensure that all tax credit programs are transparent, properly documented and accountable for meaningful results in return for the public investment of the tax expenditures given.
BUDGET
The House Budget Committee considered numerous amendments to the budget bills (HBs 1-12) Allen Icet. As noted previously, Budget Chair Allen Icet has inserted federal stimulus and stabilization funds into the elementary and secondary education budget bill (HB 2) and removed a total of roughly $900 million in general revenue from the budget process. Committee members are not allowed to consider this revenue in the budget process, so all amendments to increase must be accompanied by a like decrease. Rep. Sara Lampe offered an amendment to restore $5 million in professional development funding by reducing formula transportation funding. The amendment was defeated. Other amendments offered to restore funding for Parents as Teachers and the Scholars and Fine Arts Academies were also defeated.
The Association believes that the current House budget process is fundamentally flawed. Proper decisions for budgeting and balancing priorities can not be properly done without having all the available funding on the table for consideration. Missouri NEA supports incorporating federal economic stimulus and stabilization revenues into next year's budget in a careful way to maintain vital public services, while also seeking to address the structural budget deficit, improve the fairness of the state tax code and ensure adequate funding for public education and other vital public services.
PROTECTING MISSOURI'S FAIR AND IMPARTIAL COURTS
The Senate Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee will hear SJR 9 (Jim Lembke) on March 12. The SJR would revise Missouri's Non-Partisan Court Plan in a number of ways. Upon passage of this amendment, the terms of all members of the Appellate Judicial Commission and Circuit Judicial Commission would automatically expire. A new Governor could remove members of the commissions who were appointed by the previous Governor. These provisions will make the judicial selection process more political.
The SJR would also force all applicants to be publicly disclosed and require all interviews to be public meetings. This is likely to reduce the pool of qualified applicants, since clients or employers may be affected adversely by the knowledge that an attorney is considering applying for a court appointment.
The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan is essential for the state to select qualified judges in a way that limits partisan politics in the selection process. This non-partisan plan is so effective that a majority of states have adopted some version of the “Missouri Plan.” Fair and impartial courts are vital to democracy and the preservation of our rights, including the fundamental right of access to a great public school. The Association opposes the Joint Resolution and urges the General Assembly to refrain from any changes in the Missouri Non-Partisan Court Plan.
HOUSE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
In addition to hearing the scheduled bills on March 11, the House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee voted out three bills as Consent Bills:
1) HB 922 (Joe Smith) to require school districts to adopt policies on allergy prevention and response, with priority given to addressing potentially deadly food-borne allergies.
2) HB 659 (Gary Dusenberg) to revise the laws regarding special administrative boards appointed for lapsed school districts. In part the bill sets up a structure for moving away from an unelected, administrative board and back to an elected board over time by electing new board members.
3) HCS/HB 304 (Rodney Schad) to specify what constitutes a significant difference in the time involved in transporting students for the purposes of elections to change school district boundaries.
The Committee was also scheduled to consider and vote on HB 387 (Robert Wayne Cooper), but the committee postponed the vote on the bill until after spring break. HB 387 creates a voluntary Quality Rating System for early child care facilities. Missouri NEA supports the bill.
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
The Senate Education Committee met on March 11 and heard three of the four scheduled bills, but the hearing for SB 373 (Rob Mayer) was postponed. SB 373 creates procedures for open enrollment of public school students across school district boundary lines.
The committee also voted out two bills:
1) SCS/SB 94 (Jolie Justus) to increase the eligibility limits on state child care subsidies. The Association strongly supports this effort to help low income, working parents model the value and dignity of work while making sure their children have access to quality early childhood instruction and child care. The SCS allows the qualification level to still be set by appropriations, and then adds a sliding scale up to 45% above the percentage of Federal Poverty Level set by appropriations. The SCS also started with the Quality Rating System language from SB 4 (Charlie Shields), but the QRS language was removed by a committee amendment offered by Sen. Scott Rupp.
2) SCS/SB 175 (Eric Schmitt) to require DESE to produce and distribute a guidance document known as "The Parents' Bill of Rights" for parents of children with an individualized education program.
NO TAX JUSTICE IN "FAIR TAX"
The House Tax Reform Committee approved HCS/HBs 814 & 318 on March 11 by a party-line vote of 7-5. The HCS would eliminate the state income tax and replace it with a state sales tax. The resolution would make Missouri's tax code profoundly less fair, less adequate and less sustainable. Missouri NEA strongly opposes this type of regressive tax change that will keep the Missouri from obtaining the revenue it needs to invest in public schools, public higher education and other vital public services like healthcare.
SENATE DEBATES MORE BUSINESS TAX CREDITS
The Senate began floor debate on SCS/SBs 45 et al. (David Pearce) relating to business tax credits on March 11. SCS/SBs 45 et al. lifts or raises the cap on several business tax credits and reinstates some that have expired. The exact impact of these tax credit changes is unknown, since some currently capped programs, such as the Quality Jobs Program, would no longer have any limit on the amount of tax credits.
The Association strongly urges the legislature to maintain limits on all tax credits and to ensure that all tax credit programs are transparent, properly documented and accountable for meaningful results in return for the public investment of the tax expenditures given.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Call to Action from School Administrators Coalition
HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE COMPLETES WORK ON K-12 BUDGET
YOUR ACTION NEEDED
The House Budget Committee completed work this week on HB 2 which is the appropriations bill for elementary and secondary education. The bill is expected to go to the House floor for debate next week. School administrators need to be aware of several issues related to the budget as included in HB 2 and should contact their state representative(s) listed at the bottom of this bulletin to express concerns.
1. HB 2 fully funds the phase-in of the formula for 2009-2010. This assumes a state adequacy target of $6117 and 58% of the funding coming from the new formula and 42% from the old formula. However, it is important to note that over $400 million of federal stabilization money is being used to support the formula. It appears that the legislature is using $400 million in federal stabilization funds to supplant the funding formula in order to provide general revenue funds that can be used for one-time spending programs. When the stimulus money disappears in two years, the general revenue must return to support the formula. Administrators are working with legislative leaders to discuss the possibility of using the one-time funds for school modernization and repair by creating a distribution process that will make these funds available to school districts as quickly as possible with the least amount of red tape.
2. The transportation categorical funding is increased about $14.5 million. Again, about $20 million in federal stimulus funding is being used to support this appropriation. There is a significant concern about what may happen to this funding in two years. This additional funding should keep the transportation reimbursement rate from falling lower than current levels; however, the uncertainty of fuel prices will play a significant role in the 2009-2010 transportation reimbursement rate.
3. The Critical Needs fund is eliminated in HB 2. This is the fund that supports DESE professional development programs including the Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDCs). If these funds are not restored, it likely means the elimination of the RPDCs and may result in a substantial fine by the federal government due to the failure to demonstrate a maintenance of effort for assistance to struggling schools. Please ask your legislator to restore this funding to at least the FY09 levels of $15 million. With over $500 million in stimulus funds for education from the federal government, it appears that ample funds exist at least for the next two years to support the Critical Needs Fund. Administrators should be very vocal about the legislature turning its back on the progress and improvements schools have made through professional development activities in the past 10 years.
4. The budget includes about $24 million in additional funding for Early Childhood Special Education. The source of this funding appears to be Proposition A funds approved by voters in November.
5. HB 2 provides the same level of funding for Career Ladder for FY10 as was included in the FY09 appropriation. One area of concern is that this categorical is being funded by Federal Stimulus funds. Is this an indication that the general assembly only intends to fund career ladder for the next two years? This is a question that legislators need to answer.
6. HB 2 eliminates funding for the Scholar’s Academy, Fine Arts Academy, and Safe Schools grants. There is also a 10% reduction in funding for Parents as Teachers. Your thoughts on these programs need to be communicated to your elected officials.
7. HB 2 reduces funding for virtual schools by $1 million as proposed by the Governor and maintains funding for Career Education at FY09 levels.
8. HB 2 moves funding for the A+ Schools program from DESE to Higher Education. This poses a significant concern about the future of the A+ program.
The bottom line is that there are some significant issues in HB 2 that impact public school funding in FY10 and beyond. It is extremely important that school administrators contact their representative(s) listed to below to express concerns about funding for K-12 education programs
YOUR ACTION NEEDED
The House Budget Committee completed work this week on HB 2 which is the appropriations bill for elementary and secondary education. The bill is expected to go to the House floor for debate next week. School administrators need to be aware of several issues related to the budget as included in HB 2 and should contact their state representative(s) listed at the bottom of this bulletin to express concerns.
1. HB 2 fully funds the phase-in of the formula for 2009-2010. This assumes a state adequacy target of $6117 and 58% of the funding coming from the new formula and 42% from the old formula. However, it is important to note that over $400 million of federal stabilization money is being used to support the formula. It appears that the legislature is using $400 million in federal stabilization funds to supplant the funding formula in order to provide general revenue funds that can be used for one-time spending programs. When the stimulus money disappears in two years, the general revenue must return to support the formula. Administrators are working with legislative leaders to discuss the possibility of using the one-time funds for school modernization and repair by creating a distribution process that will make these funds available to school districts as quickly as possible with the least amount of red tape.
2. The transportation categorical funding is increased about $14.5 million. Again, about $20 million in federal stimulus funding is being used to support this appropriation. There is a significant concern about what may happen to this funding in two years. This additional funding should keep the transportation reimbursement rate from falling lower than current levels; however, the uncertainty of fuel prices will play a significant role in the 2009-2010 transportation reimbursement rate.
3. The Critical Needs fund is eliminated in HB 2. This is the fund that supports DESE professional development programs including the Regional Professional Development Centers (RPDCs). If these funds are not restored, it likely means the elimination of the RPDCs and may result in a substantial fine by the federal government due to the failure to demonstrate a maintenance of effort for assistance to struggling schools. Please ask your legislator to restore this funding to at least the FY09 levels of $15 million. With over $500 million in stimulus funds for education from the federal government, it appears that ample funds exist at least for the next two years to support the Critical Needs Fund. Administrators should be very vocal about the legislature turning its back on the progress and improvements schools have made through professional development activities in the past 10 years.
4. The budget includes about $24 million in additional funding for Early Childhood Special Education. The source of this funding appears to be Proposition A funds approved by voters in November.
5. HB 2 provides the same level of funding for Career Ladder for FY10 as was included in the FY09 appropriation. One area of concern is that this categorical is being funded by Federal Stimulus funds. Is this an indication that the general assembly only intends to fund career ladder for the next two years? This is a question that legislators need to answer.
6. HB 2 eliminates funding for the Scholar’s Academy, Fine Arts Academy, and Safe Schools grants. There is also a 10% reduction in funding for Parents as Teachers. Your thoughts on these programs need to be communicated to your elected officials.
7. HB 2 reduces funding for virtual schools by $1 million as proposed by the Governor and maintains funding for Career Education at FY09 levels.
8. HB 2 moves funding for the A+ Schools program from DESE to Higher Education. This poses a significant concern about the future of the A+ program.
The bottom line is that there are some significant issues in HB 2 that impact public school funding in FY10 and beyond. It is extremely important that school administrators contact their representative(s) listed to below to express concerns about funding for K-12 education programs
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
MSBA Voices Concern Over TABOR
The following is information posted by the Missouri School Boards' Assocation
HJR 23, commonly known as TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights), is on the House calendar for debate. If passed this constitutional amendment would create an appropriations and revenue growth lid for the state that would be the sum of inflation plus population growth. The measure imposes a strict spending limit and threatens the ability of future legislatures to fund basic state services including elementary and secondary education, health services, higher education and public safety at an adequate level. The legislation slowly erodes the state’s ability to fund critical services and infrastructure needs that not only impacts the quality of life for all Missourians, but also the economic productivity of the state. TABOR is dangerous for Missouri because linking state spending to the inflation rate does not make sense. It does not capture the change in costs for the goods and services the state purchases, nor does it take into account changing population demographics or changes in the need for various services. The current estimates are that using a measure of Missouri population growth plus inflation as this resolution proposes to do would restrict appropriations growth to 2.5 percent to 3 percent per year. Limiting growth to this level will result in significant cuts to the state budget over time. Missouri already has a spending limit in the Hancock Amendment which restricts the growth in state revenue and thereby limits appropriations to the ratio of state appropriations to the level of personal income that existed in 1980. Supporters of the measure say it will keep taxes low and attract business. However, Missouri already has the lowest corporate income tax per capita among states that use this tax and also has numerous business-oriented tax credit programs. The cap on appropriations will not allow Missouri to make improvements in services for residents including for education and transportation infrastructure which are important to the business community. Please call and write your representative and tell him/ her to vote against HJR 23. For a list of representatives and their phone number please go to http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx.
HJR 23, commonly known as TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights), is on the House calendar for debate. If passed this constitutional amendment would create an appropriations and revenue growth lid for the state that would be the sum of inflation plus population growth. The measure imposes a strict spending limit and threatens the ability of future legislatures to fund basic state services including elementary and secondary education, health services, higher education and public safety at an adequate level. The legislation slowly erodes the state’s ability to fund critical services and infrastructure needs that not only impacts the quality of life for all Missourians, but also the economic productivity of the state. TABOR is dangerous for Missouri because linking state spending to the inflation rate does not make sense. It does not capture the change in costs for the goods and services the state purchases, nor does it take into account changing population demographics or changes in the need for various services. The current estimates are that using a measure of Missouri population growth plus inflation as this resolution proposes to do would restrict appropriations growth to 2.5 percent to 3 percent per year. Limiting growth to this level will result in significant cuts to the state budget over time. Missouri already has a spending limit in the Hancock Amendment which restricts the growth in state revenue and thereby limits appropriations to the ratio of state appropriations to the level of personal income that existed in 1980. Supporters of the measure say it will keep taxes low and attract business. However, Missouri already has the lowest corporate income tax per capita among states that use this tax and also has numerous business-oriented tax credit programs. The cap on appropriations will not allow Missouri to make improvements in services for residents including for education and transportation infrastructure which are important to the business community. Please call and write your representative and tell him/ her to vote against HJR 23. For a list of representatives and their phone number please go to http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Update on House Joint Resolution 23
House Budget Chair Icet had his House Joint Resolution 23 heard in his committee Wednesday morning.
Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment prohibits appropriations in any fiscal year from exceeding the total state general revenue appropriations from the previous year by more than the appropriations growth limit. The appropriations growth limit will be the greater of zero or the sum of the annual rate of inflation and the annual Missouri population growth.
In any fiscal year when the net general revenue collections are in excess of 1% of the authorized net general revenue appropriations allowed, 67% of the excess is to be transferred to the Cash Operating Reserve Fund and 33% to the Budget Reserve Fund, which are created by the bill. Any revenue in excess of the specified limits of the funds will be used to permanently reduce the income tax rate rounded to the nearest .25%.
Total state general revenue appropriations may exceed the appropriations limit only if the Governor declares an emergency and the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority, approves appropriation bills to meet the emergency. The funds appropriated to meet the emergency will not increase the appropriation limit for the succeeding fiscal year.
New or increased tax revenues or fees receiving voter approval will be exempt from the calculation of the appropriations growth limit for the year in which they are passed.
Sixty-seven percent of the balance in the Budget Reserve Fund on July 1 of each year is to be transferred to the Cash Operating Reserve Fund. If the balance in the Cash Operating Reserve Fund exceeds 5% of the net general revenue collected in the previous fiscal year, the excess amount will be transferred to the General Revenue Fund.
In any fiscal year in which the Governor reduces expenditures below amounts appropriated, the Governor may request an emergency appropriation from the Budget Reserve Fund. If the request is approved by the General Assembly, funds may be restored to any expenditure authorized by existing appropriations. If the balance in the Budget Reserve Fund at the end of a fiscal year exceeds 7% of the net general revenue collections for the previous fiscal year, the excess funds will be transferred to the General Revenue Fund. If the balance is less than 7%, the difference will be transferred from the General Revenue Fund within five years.
Funds appropriated from the Budget Reserve Fund must be paid back within five years of the original transfer date.
Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment prohibits appropriations in any fiscal year from exceeding the total state general revenue appropriations from the previous year by more than the appropriations growth limit. The appropriations growth limit will be the greater of zero or the sum of the annual rate of inflation and the annual Missouri population growth.
In any fiscal year when the net general revenue collections are in excess of 1% of the authorized net general revenue appropriations allowed, 67% of the excess is to be transferred to the Cash Operating Reserve Fund and 33% to the Budget Reserve Fund, which are created by the bill. Any revenue in excess of the specified limits of the funds will be used to permanently reduce the income tax rate rounded to the nearest .25%.
Total state general revenue appropriations may exceed the appropriations limit only if the Governor declares an emergency and the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority, approves appropriation bills to meet the emergency. The funds appropriated to meet the emergency will not increase the appropriation limit for the succeeding fiscal year.
New or increased tax revenues or fees receiving voter approval will be exempt from the calculation of the appropriations growth limit for the year in which they are passed.
Sixty-seven percent of the balance in the Budget Reserve Fund on July 1 of each year is to be transferred to the Cash Operating Reserve Fund. If the balance in the Cash Operating Reserve Fund exceeds 5% of the net general revenue collected in the previous fiscal year, the excess amount will be transferred to the General Revenue Fund.
In any fiscal year in which the Governor reduces expenditures below amounts appropriated, the Governor may request an emergency appropriation from the Budget Reserve Fund. If the request is approved by the General Assembly, funds may be restored to any expenditure authorized by existing appropriations. If the balance in the Budget Reserve Fund at the end of a fiscal year exceeds 7% of the net general revenue collections for the previous fiscal year, the excess funds will be transferred to the General Revenue Fund. If the balance is less than 7%, the difference will be transferred from the General Revenue Fund within five years.
Funds appropriated from the Budget Reserve Fund must be paid back within five years of the original transfer date.
Federal Stimulus Package's Impact on K-12 Funding
On February 17, President Obama signed in to law the largest funding package in our nation’s history, the federal “Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” This act contains approximately $787 billion in new federal spending or tax cuts with up to $100 billion potentially going to public education programs. MSBA will be providing a series of video conferences covering the federal stimulus package and its impact on Missouri’s schools in the coming days. For dates and registration information, please visit MSBA’s website at www.msbanet.org.
Missouri’s federal education funding will increase by an estimated $447 Million over the next 2 years. Click here for an estimation of the funding your district may receive, as calculated by Congressional Research Service: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/MISSOURI-20090213-HR1-LEAs.pdf
Missouri’s schools are certainly in need of additional federal funding. However, before making decisions on how funds will be used, districts need to seriously consider the following:
This massive increase in federal education funding is part of an exceptional stimulus program that is temporary. Although MSBA continues to lobby for increased funding of education, school districts should expect a decrease of federal funding after the 2010-11 school year.
The rules governing expenditure of Title I and Special Education funds still apply. The funds are distributed to districts through these existing federal programs. It appears that Congress did not waive the legal requirement that federal funds must supplement, not supplant state and local efforts. Therefore, most of the funding can only be used on new or expanded services to students, not to assist the district in costs associated with existing services offered such as salaries for existing special education personnel.
State funding for K-12 after 2011 is not projected to significantly increase. In fact, some experts are predicting a decline in state funding due to the continuing economic crisis. Therefore, in 2011 when federal funding likely decreases, any new programs districts create will need to end or the district will need to come up with local funds to maintain the programs (which could include increasing taxes or eliminating other programs.)
MSBA does not want to discourage districts from using these funds. However, school officials should consider one-time expenditures that will produce future and sustainable benefits such as equipment, technology or professional development. Alternatively, districts should take time to plan how new programs will be sustained after the 2011 school year.
Following is an overview prepared by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) of the federal stimulus bill’s impact on education funding:
This historic increase in education spending, and the changes that it will bring with it, may be difficult for some policymakers and their staffs to “get their heads around”. For this reason ECS has prepared this preliminary summary to help explain:
How much new education funding states can expect to receive;
How the funds will be distributed and how they can be spent;
How policymakers can explain this new funding to their constituents;
Things to think about.
1. How Much Will States Receive?
States will receive the following amounts of new federal funding, on top of current allocations, for education programs. Items in italics indicate newly created federal programs:
DistributedImmediately
Distributed OnJuly 1, 2010
Early Learning
Early Head Start
$ .50 billion
$ .50 billion
Head Start
$ .55 billion
$ .55 billion
K-12
Title I – Formula Grants
$ 5.00 billion
$ 5.00 billion
Title I – School Improvement Grants
$ 1.50 billion
$ 1.50 billion
Title I – Impact Aid
$ .10 billion
Title II – Education Technology State Grants
$ .33 billion
$ .33 billion
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
$ .03 billion
$ .03 billion
Title V – Teacher Incentive Fund
$ .20 billion
IDEA – Special Education
$ 6.10 billion
$ 6.10 billion
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants
$ .54 billion
Improved Data Collection
$ .25 billion
New Funding
State Incentive Grants
$ 5.00 billion
Innovation Fund
$ 0.65 billion
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – Education Funding
$40.10 billion
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – High Priority Needs
$ 8.20 billion
Higher Education
Increasing Pell Grants
$15.60 billion
Institute of Education Sciences
$ .25 billion
Work Study
$ .20 billion
Student Aid Administration
$ .10 billion
Higher Education Account
$ .10 billion
Total funds directed toward public education
$79.97 billion
$19.98 billion
The estimated grant to Missouri for education programs under the conference agreement to the federal stimulus bill is as follows (the estimate was prepared by the Congressional Research Service):
ESEA, Title I-A Grants to LEAs (Targeted and EFIG): $154,338,000
ESEA, Title I-A (School Improvement): $47,866,000
ESEA, Title II-D (Education Technology): $10,168,000
McKinney-Vento (Homeless Assistance): $1,388,000
IDEA, Part B (sec. 611): $227,175,000
IDEA, Part C: $6,422,000
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund: 942,895,000
*Note: the projected funding for Missouri is an estimate and, as such, is subject to change.
2. What are the Specifics of the Funding?
Below is a description of the funding systems and mandates for each of the major education programs in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Unless otherwise noted, distribution systems and mandates for pre-existing federal programs will remain the same.
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – Education Funding
61% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative population of 5 to 24 year olds and 39% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative total population
Each state must first use these funds to restore state funding for K-12 education to its FY 2007-2008 level. States must then restore higher education funding to its FY 2007-2008 level.
If there is any remaining funding after restoring funds to their FY 2007-2008 levels, it must be distributed to school districts based on their share of Title I funding
For states to qualify for this funding, they must maintain support for K-12 and higher education at least at the level provided in FY 2005-2006
State receiving these funds are required to annually report on the following:
How these funds were used
The number of jobs saved or created by this legislation
Tax increases averted by this legislation
The state’s progress in reducing inequities in the distribution of highly –qualified teachers
The state’s progress on developing a longitudinal data system
The progress in implementing valid assessments
Actions taken by the state to limit higher education tuition and fees
Enrollment of in-state students at public higher education institutions
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – High Priority Needs61% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative population of 5 to 24 year olds, and 39% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative total population States could use these funds for any state program that is deemed to be a “High Priority Need” – which could include early learning, K-12 or higher education
State Incentive GrantsThe U.S. Secretary of Education will be required to establish guidelines for distributing these grants based on whatever states have made significant progress in achieving equity in teacher distribution, establishing longitudinal data systems and enhancing assessments for English language learners and students with disabilities If a state receives funding under this program, it must distribute 50% of the funds directly to school districts based on Title I allocations.
Innovation FundThese awards will be designed to recognize school districts, or partnerships between nonprofit organizations and state educational agencies, school districts, or one or more schools that have made achievement gains. The final criteria for these awards will be designated by the U.S. Secretary of EducationTitle I School districts that receive funding from this program are required to report to the state educational agency a school-by-school listing of per pupil expenditures, states will then report this information to the U.S. Department of Education The U.S. Department of Education is asked to encourage states to use 40% of this funding for middle and high schools Institute of Education Sciences These funds are to be used for statewide data systems that include postsecondary and workforce information. $5 million from this grant may be used to hire individuals to be state data coordinators and for awards to public or private agencies to improve data coordination.
3. How Policymakers can explain this new funding to their Constituents
The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the single most expensive piece of legislation that the federal government has ever passed. This act moved from an idea to a signed piece of legislation within weeks. Because of its size and the speed with which it passed, many of your constituents may be wondering what it all means. To assist you ECS has assembled some communication tools:
Increased Federal Funds: This bill will provide up to $80 billion in additional federal funds for K-12 education. If these funds are expended by states evenly over the next two years, this would represent an 80% increase in total federal K-12 spending over 2008-09.
Increased Federal Role: This increase in K-12 spending will greatly increase the federal government’s role in education funding. Prior to this bill the federal government provided on average approximately 9% of all education spending. Assuming these funds will be evenly expended by states over a two-year period, this bill will increase federal spending on K-12 education to between 14.8% and 15.5% of total spending.
Funding Per Student: The additional K-12 operational funding will translate into an average additional $870.60 per student nationally per year for the next two years.
Education Jobs Created/Saved: Using current education spending patterns we can estimate that this act will create or save 267,355 teaching positions and an additional 40,000 instructional staff this year.
4. Issues and Ideas about this New Funding Package
States will be receiving a great deal of funding in a short period of time, and there are several points that you may want to take into consideration:
The temporary nature of this funding: This funding is designed to provide financial relief for a two-year period, so states should not count on receiving these additional funds beyond the 2010-2011 school year. States should be reluctant to use any of this federal funding for programs or projects that will last beyond this two-year period.
Early planning could result in greater payoffs: Policymakers in every state want to ensure that this increase in spending turns into increased student performance and the best way to do this is by spending some time in planning and preparing for these new allocations.
Filling holes or creating new programs: The fiscal conditions in some states are so bad that this additional federal funding will need to be used to make up for, or attempt to make up for, state budget cuts. In other states where the recession has not been as severe, there will be additional education funding available to use for new and innovative programs. It will be important to let your constituents know early on if you will have money for additional programs or not – you don’t want them coming up with wish lists only to have their hopes dashed.
Education Commission of the States • 700 Broadway, Suite 810 • Denver, CO 80203-3442 • 303.299.3600 • fax 303.296.8332 • www.ecs.org
© 2009 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is the only nationwide nonpartisan interstate compact devoted to education.
Missouri’s federal education funding will increase by an estimated $447 Million over the next 2 years. Click here for an estimation of the funding your district may receive, as calculated by Congressional Research Service: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/MISSOURI-20090213-HR1-LEAs.pdf
Missouri’s schools are certainly in need of additional federal funding. However, before making decisions on how funds will be used, districts need to seriously consider the following:
This massive increase in federal education funding is part of an exceptional stimulus program that is temporary. Although MSBA continues to lobby for increased funding of education, school districts should expect a decrease of federal funding after the 2010-11 school year.
The rules governing expenditure of Title I and Special Education funds still apply. The funds are distributed to districts through these existing federal programs. It appears that Congress did not waive the legal requirement that federal funds must supplement, not supplant state and local efforts. Therefore, most of the funding can only be used on new or expanded services to students, not to assist the district in costs associated with existing services offered such as salaries for existing special education personnel.
State funding for K-12 after 2011 is not projected to significantly increase. In fact, some experts are predicting a decline in state funding due to the continuing economic crisis. Therefore, in 2011 when federal funding likely decreases, any new programs districts create will need to end or the district will need to come up with local funds to maintain the programs (which could include increasing taxes or eliminating other programs.)
MSBA does not want to discourage districts from using these funds. However, school officials should consider one-time expenditures that will produce future and sustainable benefits such as equipment, technology or professional development. Alternatively, districts should take time to plan how new programs will be sustained after the 2011 school year.
Following is an overview prepared by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) of the federal stimulus bill’s impact on education funding:
This historic increase in education spending, and the changes that it will bring with it, may be difficult for some policymakers and their staffs to “get their heads around”. For this reason ECS has prepared this preliminary summary to help explain:
How much new education funding states can expect to receive;
How the funds will be distributed and how they can be spent;
How policymakers can explain this new funding to their constituents;
Things to think about.
1. How Much Will States Receive?
States will receive the following amounts of new federal funding, on top of current allocations, for education programs. Items in italics indicate newly created federal programs:
DistributedImmediately
Distributed OnJuly 1, 2010
Early Learning
Early Head Start
$ .50 billion
$ .50 billion
Head Start
$ .55 billion
$ .55 billion
K-12
Title I – Formula Grants
$ 5.00 billion
$ 5.00 billion
Title I – School Improvement Grants
$ 1.50 billion
$ 1.50 billion
Title I – Impact Aid
$ .10 billion
Title II – Education Technology State Grants
$ .33 billion
$ .33 billion
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
$ .03 billion
$ .03 billion
Title V – Teacher Incentive Fund
$ .20 billion
IDEA – Special Education
$ 6.10 billion
$ 6.10 billion
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants
$ .54 billion
Improved Data Collection
$ .25 billion
New Funding
State Incentive Grants
$ 5.00 billion
Innovation Fund
$ 0.65 billion
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – Education Funding
$40.10 billion
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – High Priority Needs
$ 8.20 billion
Higher Education
Increasing Pell Grants
$15.60 billion
Institute of Education Sciences
$ .25 billion
Work Study
$ .20 billion
Student Aid Administration
$ .10 billion
Higher Education Account
$ .10 billion
Total funds directed toward public education
$79.97 billion
$19.98 billion
The estimated grant to Missouri for education programs under the conference agreement to the federal stimulus bill is as follows (the estimate was prepared by the Congressional Research Service):
ESEA, Title I-A Grants to LEAs (Targeted and EFIG): $154,338,000
ESEA, Title I-A (School Improvement): $47,866,000
ESEA, Title II-D (Education Technology): $10,168,000
McKinney-Vento (Homeless Assistance): $1,388,000
IDEA, Part B (sec. 611): $227,175,000
IDEA, Part C: $6,422,000
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund: 942,895,000
*Note: the projected funding for Missouri is an estimate and, as such, is subject to change.
2. What are the Specifics of the Funding?
Below is a description of the funding systems and mandates for each of the major education programs in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Unless otherwise noted, distribution systems and mandates for pre-existing federal programs will remain the same.
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – Education Funding
61% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative population of 5 to 24 year olds and 39% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative total population
Each state must first use these funds to restore state funding for K-12 education to its FY 2007-2008 level. States must then restore higher education funding to its FY 2007-2008 level.
If there is any remaining funding after restoring funds to their FY 2007-2008 levels, it must be distributed to school districts based on their share of Title I funding
For states to qualify for this funding, they must maintain support for K-12 and higher education at least at the level provided in FY 2005-2006
State receiving these funds are required to annually report on the following:
How these funds were used
The number of jobs saved or created by this legislation
Tax increases averted by this legislation
The state’s progress in reducing inequities in the distribution of highly –qualified teachers
The state’s progress on developing a longitudinal data system
The progress in implementing valid assessments
Actions taken by the state to limit higher education tuition and fees
Enrollment of in-state students at public higher education institutions
State Fiscal Stabilization Funds – High Priority Needs61% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative population of 5 to 24 year olds, and 39% of these funds will be distributed based on a state’s relative total population States could use these funds for any state program that is deemed to be a “High Priority Need” – which could include early learning, K-12 or higher education
State Incentive GrantsThe U.S. Secretary of Education will be required to establish guidelines for distributing these grants based on whatever states have made significant progress in achieving equity in teacher distribution, establishing longitudinal data systems and enhancing assessments for English language learners and students with disabilities If a state receives funding under this program, it must distribute 50% of the funds directly to school districts based on Title I allocations.
Innovation FundThese awards will be designed to recognize school districts, or partnerships between nonprofit organizations and state educational agencies, school districts, or one or more schools that have made achievement gains. The final criteria for these awards will be designated by the U.S. Secretary of EducationTitle I School districts that receive funding from this program are required to report to the state educational agency a school-by-school listing of per pupil expenditures, states will then report this information to the U.S. Department of Education The U.S. Department of Education is asked to encourage states to use 40% of this funding for middle and high schools Institute of Education Sciences These funds are to be used for statewide data systems that include postsecondary and workforce information. $5 million from this grant may be used to hire individuals to be state data coordinators and for awards to public or private agencies to improve data coordination.
3. How Policymakers can explain this new funding to their Constituents
The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is the single most expensive piece of legislation that the federal government has ever passed. This act moved from an idea to a signed piece of legislation within weeks. Because of its size and the speed with which it passed, many of your constituents may be wondering what it all means. To assist you ECS has assembled some communication tools:
Increased Federal Funds: This bill will provide up to $80 billion in additional federal funds for K-12 education. If these funds are expended by states evenly over the next two years, this would represent an 80% increase in total federal K-12 spending over 2008-09.
Increased Federal Role: This increase in K-12 spending will greatly increase the federal government’s role in education funding. Prior to this bill the federal government provided on average approximately 9% of all education spending. Assuming these funds will be evenly expended by states over a two-year period, this bill will increase federal spending on K-12 education to between 14.8% and 15.5% of total spending.
Funding Per Student: The additional K-12 operational funding will translate into an average additional $870.60 per student nationally per year for the next two years.
Education Jobs Created/Saved: Using current education spending patterns we can estimate that this act will create or save 267,355 teaching positions and an additional 40,000 instructional staff this year.
4. Issues and Ideas about this New Funding Package
States will be receiving a great deal of funding in a short period of time, and there are several points that you may want to take into consideration:
The temporary nature of this funding: This funding is designed to provide financial relief for a two-year period, so states should not count on receiving these additional funds beyond the 2010-2011 school year. States should be reluctant to use any of this federal funding for programs or projects that will last beyond this two-year period.
Early planning could result in greater payoffs: Policymakers in every state want to ensure that this increase in spending turns into increased student performance and the best way to do this is by spending some time in planning and preparing for these new allocations.
Filling holes or creating new programs: The fiscal conditions in some states are so bad that this additional federal funding will need to be used to make up for, or attempt to make up for, state budget cuts. In other states where the recession has not been as severe, there will be additional education funding available to use for new and innovative programs. It will be important to let your constituents know early on if you will have money for additional programs or not – you don’t want them coming up with wish lists only to have their hopes dashed.
Education Commission of the States • 700 Broadway, Suite 810 • Denver, CO 80203-3442 • 303.299.3600 • fax 303.296.8332 • www.ecs.org
© 2009 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved. ECS is the only nationwide nonpartisan interstate compact devoted to education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
