When Indiana’s legislature wrapped up the state budget in 2017, educators celebrated a record $32 million headed to support students learning English as a new language, including considerable bonuses for schools with the highest concentrations of those students.
But what school leaders didn’t immediately realize was that because of a calculation error, state lawmakers had not budgeted enough money to give the schools the extra dollars they were told to expect — it would have cost another $50 million to pay for the promised bonuses.
“It is a pretty significant difference,” said Kathy Friend, chief financial officer for Fort Wayne schools, which serves about 2,600 English-learners. “We didn’t realize it until after the allocation came out.”
The shortfall appears to have been due to a number of factors. First, more schools than expected applied for the funding to support students who need more intensive services. But the amounts the state promised to fund per student to schools with the largest shares of English-learners were also incorrectly calculated, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans told Chalkbeat. If the data error had been caught earlier, the staff member said, the numbers promised in the initial budget would more closely reflect the dollars schools ended up receiving.
“It was definitely not intentional,” said Rep. Bob Behning, a Republican from Indianapolis who chairs the House Education Committee, who said he didn’t realize there was an issue until schools approached him in the fall.
It’s not unusual for the state not to fund all of what they initially promised if, for example, enrollment spikes or revenue dips. When that happens, the law says, each district or charter school’s funding amount should be reduced proportionately. But because they were expecting larger bonuses than other districts, large urban public school districts and charter schools that tend to serve bigger shares of students learning English felt the deepest effects of the miscalculation.
Chalkbeat’s review of the funding data shows the state would have had to set aside about $80 million to meet the per-student expectations it set out in the 2017 budget, $47.5 million more than what lawmakers ended up budgeting. The original plan called for increased funding for students learning English to $250 and $300 per-student, depending on the year in question.
In addition to the base amount, districts and charter schools with higher percentages of students were supposed to get even more on top of that — upwards of $900 per student if they had between 5 percent and 18 percent of their population learning English, and upwards of $1,200 if it was more than 18 percent. In actuality, the schools got between $140 and $177 per-student in 2018 on top of the base, and $22 and $28 per-student extra for 2019.
Behning said lawmakers had an opportunity to backfill the dollars to schools with proportionately more English-learners, but they did not. Last year, a highly publicized shortfall in basic state aid to schools made a splash so big that lawmakers came together in a non-budget year to ensure it was filled, approving another $100 million to go to schools’ general funds.
Lawmakers decided not to bump up the funding for English language-learners because while the specifics of the calculations were based on incorrect data, the Senate spokeswoman said, $32 million was the correct total amount the state wanted to spend.
To be sure, all Indiana schools with English-learners received more money per-student from the state under the 2017 budget than in years prior. Friend said she and her colleagues were happy that lawmakers had upped the funding, recognizing the needs of districts like hers that have many students learning English.
The incorrect budget calculation would have given the district about $2 million more over the two years than the $1.5 million they received. But Friend said the difference in expected versus received dollars doesn’t mean the needs of Fort Wayne’s English-learners aren’t being met.
Rather, school leaders have to use more money from their overall state funding to provide the needed services, so across the board, there’s less to go around. Friend said the district spends $4.5 million on English-learners from its general fund. Some additional money comes from the federal government or local sources. Much of the English-learner-specific money the district gets from the state goes toward paying teachers and teaching assistants, with some also going to pay for instructional materials, interpreters used to communicate with parents, and teacher training.
“We aren’t going to make a choice for what we need to do for these students based on how much money we get,” Friend said. “We have to do what we have to do to serve them. What (the extra funding) does is it relieves the general fund for all the other non-ELL students.”
But, it’s also not a small sum, she said. In 2018, Friend said, the district thought it would receive three-quarters of a million dollars more than it did.
“You can’t sneeze at $756,000,” Friend said. “That’s a lot of money that just plays into the overall program or planning that we have as a district.”
In Marion County, several districts were affected, including Perry Township, which saw the biggest difference in actual vs. expected dollars of any district or charter school in the state. Chalkbeat’s analysis shows the district could have expected about $9 million under the incorrect formula. State data shows it received about $2.6 million. Indianapolis Public Schools, the state’s largest district, received about $2.8 million, more than $6 million less than anticipated.
State Superintendent Jennifer McCormick has called for more funding for English-learners next year, upping the current $300 per-student amount to $450 per-student. But in a year when lawmakers are already saying revenue is exceptionally tight, it’s not clear this funding will be a priority as it competes with teacher pay, preschool, and funding for the Department of Child Services.
Lawmakers have taken major steps to increase ELL funding in years past. After a Chalkbeat project showed how schools were increasingly trying to serve growing numbers of English-learners across the city, the legislature more than doubled funding in 2015 to about $21 million, up from $10 million in 2013. Since 2006, the total number of students learning English in Indiana schools has increased by 77 percent. Today, public schools enroll 47,672 students learning English as a new language.
Back in 2006, Denver voters passed a sales tax to help the families of 4-year-olds pay for preschool. It was a first for Denver and the state, eventually growing into a nationally recognized program that has served nearly 51,000 students.
Summit County, a resort community 80 miles to the west, will soon offer the same kind of preschool assistance to 4-year-olds, using proceeds from a new property tax approved by voters in November. Local early childhood leaders say the new effort, called Summit PreK, will help prepare kids for kindergarten and make it easier for their parents to stay in the workforce.
“We really want to provide some financial relief to our low- and middle-income families,” said Lucinda Burns, executive director of Early Childhood Options, the early childhood council in Summit County.
On its face, Summit PreK is a small local victory poised to help a few hundred children and families a year in one pricey ski resort community. But some observers see it as the latest success in a broader movement that could eventually lead to statewide preschool-for-all.
“In Colorado, it feels like it’s going to be a community-by-community strategy until we reach a tipping point,” said Jennifer Stedron, executive director of the nonprofit Early Milestones Colorado, which worked with Summit County leaders on Summit PreK’s design and cost modeling.
She said gov.-elect Jared Polis, who championed free universal preschool throughout his campaign, may sense that the tide is slowly turning in favor of a statewide effort.
Still, he’ll face some big obstacles in making his vision a reality. Colorado voters have repeatedly expressed skepticism about statewide tax hikes for education, most recently rejecting Amendment 73, which would have earmarked money for preschool among other things.
A recent report from the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University dinged Colorado for lacking the political will to make progress on publicly funded preschool, citing the state’s limited education budget and the constraints of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a constitutional amendment commonly known as TABOR.
Currently, the state funds half-day preschool for children from low-income families or with other risk factors, but there’s not enough funding to serve all eligible children. Most middle-class families, a group hit hard by child care costs and without access to most types of government assistance, don’t qualify.
For now, local initiatives hold the most promise in helping Colorado families across the economic spectrum pay for preschool. Besides Summit PreK and the Denver Preschool Program, Jeffco school district voters recently passed two tax measures that will help the district expand preschool programming, and in 2017, voters in the southwestern Colorado county of San Miguel passed a tax measure to improve local child care. More than a dozen other Colorado cities, counties, and school districts also earmark taxpayer money for early childhood efforts.
Growing interest in local early childhood tax measures could usher in a new state law next year. Cody Belzley, who leads the Denver-based Common Good Consulting, said that discussions among leaders in the Roaring Fork Valley have spurred plans to introduce a bill to create early childhood special districts.
Such districts would allow multiple municipalities or counties to join together to seek ballot initiatives for early childhood efforts. The bill died last spring after being introduced late in legislative session, but Belzley is optimistic the measure will win support next time.
In Summit County, the new preschool effort will draw heavily on the Denver Preschool Program model, both awarding tuition assistance on a sliding scale based on family income and giving extra money when families choose programs with higher ratings.
Burns, of the early childhood council, said tuition credits through Summit PreK will range from around $300 to $1,100 per month per child. The money will go directly to participating preschools.
Summit PreK will limit eligible preschool programs to those that have earned a rating of Level 2,3,4 or 5 on the state’s rating system, called Colorado Shines. Level 1 programs won’t be eligible to participate, though they will get help to improve their ratings.
Currently, 22 of 27 of Summit County’s licensed preschool programs have a rating of Level 2 or higher.
Unlike in Denver, where preschool funding came out of a narrow single-issue ballot measure — after two broader versions failed — funding for Summit PreK was part of a larger property tax measure that also included money for mental health, wildfire preparedness, recycling, and building improvements. The package passed easily.
Burns said both the county and its county seat, Breckenridge, have a track record of supporting early childhood efforts with public money.
She noted the average rent for a family of four in the county is $2,300 a month, the average cost of preschool is $1,300 a month and the average cost of health insurance is $500 a month.
“We call that the trifecta,” she said.
Tamara Drangstveit, who heads a family resource center in Silverthorne and co-chaired the campaign for Summit County’s ballot initiative, said, “Most of our voting block really understands the struggle of our working families.”
She’s personally familiar with the issue as the mother of an 8-year-old and of 3-year-old twins. She said she’ll be one of the parents applying for preschool tuition assistance through Summit PreK, which will roll out on a small scale this spring and more broadly next fall.
“It’s also not lost on me that, as a mom of twins, I’m spending more on their child care than [I will] on their college education,” Drangstveit said.