Legislative Role

1. Legislative Role School Funding September 2019

2. “An investment in Knowledge pays the best interest” Benjamin Franklin

3. tax payers invest over $1.3 billion and1/3 of state budget annually for education

4. Total EDUCATION : Dela” Where the dollars GO” • Actual expenses 2017-2018 • Instruction $1,294,635,849 ( 56.990%) • Food Services $153,573,298 (6.760%) • School Admin. $130,088,901 ( 5.727%) • Instructional Staff $38,110,195 ( 1.678%) • STUDENTS $104,445,873 (4.596%) • Student Transportation $109,727,168 (4.830%) • Other support $193,344,264 (8.511%) • Division I: Salary and Benefits= $956,561,941 (66.323%) • Division II $48,396,277 (3.356%) • Division III $99,703,422 (6.913%) • Transportation: %83,6654,296 (5.801%) • Major instructional programs $,368,678 (0.303%)

5. Other funds • Plant Operations Maintenance $216,383,433 ( 9.525%) • Other funds: $249,592,293 ( 17.305%) • Major instructional programs includes Academic Excellence, Related services for disabled • Other funds includes substitute teachers, driver education cars, technology grants, staff development, pregnant students, summer vocational, private placements, minor capital improvements, school discipline programs, etc.

6. Delaware Education Funding • Division I Funding is for school staff salaries based on actual placement of each and every employee and is intended to pay 70% of teachers’ salaries; • Division II funding is for operating expenses including classroom supplies and materials, energy, contractual services, utilities, and; • Division III for equalizing the inequities in the relative wealth of taxable real estate per pupil among the nineteen school districts. This is commonly called “Equalization funding”

7. The wheels on the bus go round and round • The State provides 90% of transportation funding to the local districts and charter schools based on a formula. Charter formula is 70% of the prior year per student costs of the vo-tech district in the same county.

8. Where does the money come from? LOCAL FUNDS Federal Funds Special programs have federal funds such as Improving America’s Schools, Title I and II funds, Individuals with disabilities part b funds and Adult voced funds. • Local school district are derived from property taxes collected on tax rate as per $100 assessed valuation. IN SUSSEX NO REASSEMENT SINCE 1973

9. Sources of EDUCATIONAL REVENUE • STATE FUNDS $1,425,471,468 (58.923%) • LOCAL FUNDS $ 799,387,876 (33.043%) PROPERTY TAXES • FEDERAL FUNDS $194,364,063 ( 8.034%) • TOTAL EDUCATIONAL INVESTMENT $2,400,000,000

10. Property Tax • Sussex County Total collections 2016-2017 $133,749,523 Cape Henlopen: $45,946,641 Indian River: $43,570,791 Laurel: $ 7,174,926

11. Legislative Role in funding schools • Appropriate dollars for education ( Budget) • Fund Capitol Improvements ( Bond) • State salary structure • Delaware Code title 14 section 15 discuss fiscal provisions • Delaware Code title 14 section 17 discuss state appropriations

12. General Assembly shall • Make provision for annual payment to free public schools • Appropriate division I • Appropriate division II • Appropriate division iii • Local school taxes subchapter I general provisions: • A district may levy and collect additional taxes for school purposes upon the assessed value of all taxable real estate in such district except real estate exempt from taxation

13. Reassessment: property subject to assessment shall be assessed at its true value in money The General Assembly did not prescribe a specific schedule for conducting general assessments. It chose instead to leave the matter to the judgment of the leaders of each county…. The General Assembly entrusted local county officials with the discretion to determine how often it would be necessary to conduct a general assessment

14. “Old News” The basic purpose of the project has been to analyze the issue of whether or not the Delaware state finance scheme for public elementary and secondary education provides equal opportunity for all students in the state. Funds for the research were provided by the U.S. Office of Education as a result of Section 842, Part D, Title VIII, Public Law 93-380. The project director was Dr. Charles R. Link, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Delaware. Other investigators include Dr. David E. Black and Dr. Kenneth A. Lewis-Associate Professors of Economics, University of Delaware. We would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Edward C. Ratledge, Susan Dunwody, Priscilla Luce, and Dan Talmo.

15. May 1979 Delaware State News Article

16. Previous review In the previous chapters we have presented four major findings: 1) expenditures per pupil (an input measure) and achievement scores (an output measure) are strongly and positively related to the property wealth per pupil of the district; 2) the assessment-to-sales ratios used in the current Division III formula do not correctly reflect wealth differences between districts (a problem of taxpayer equity); 3) Division I state expenditures are wealth reinforcing, i . e., per pupil Division I funding is greater on the average for districts with greater per pupil property wealth; and 4) there exists under current assessment practices substantial variation between assessed-to-market ratios both between and within districts (again, a problem of taxpayer equity). These variations exist both between and within property -233 types. With the New Castle County redistricting, the intradistrictvariations are compounded. These findings may provide a basis for litigation, as outlined in our review and interpretation of recent court deliberations. In this chapter we explore alternative policy recommendations .