At-risk funding analysis of FY23 Budget
Mary Levy
As is unfortunately usual, in next year’s local school budgets, DCPS has diverted about 40% of at-risk funding to uses other than extra services prescribed by law to help at-risk students.
At-risk students are those homeless or in foster care, whose families receive food stamps or welfare, and high school students held back at least one year. At-risk funds are allocated every year by the Mayor and Council to provide services to at-risk students above and beyond those provided for others. DCPS is required to use these funds only to supplement and not supplant other funds.
Every year DCPS allocates the appropriate amount per at-risk student to each school but directs them to divert some of this funding to pay for general education (the basic program for all students) and special education services that are supposed to paid from regular funds. The amount and percentage diverted varies from school to school but has consistently added up to about 40% of total at-risk funding. See C4DC analyses since 2015 and the DC Auditor report https://dcauditor.org/report/d-c-schools-shortchange-at-risk-students/.
This year the Mayor’s Proposed Budget allocated $2,981 per at-risk student plus a supplement of $745 for each over-age high school student. DCPS allocated $2,683 (central offices keep the rest per statute), along with the high school supplement to each school for each at-risk student. But once again the system allocated too little money to cover general education and special ed, then diverted 40% of the schools’ at-risk funds to cover them fully.
The DC Council later amended the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula (UPSFF) to include an additional amount of $621 per pupil to increase at-risk services in schools with concentrations of at-risk students, all 75 with more than 40%, and an additional $621 per pupil for 38 with more than 70%. Although this action increases DCPS’ at-risk funding by $5.3 million, it is hardly enough to offset the $30.3 million of at-risk funding syphoned off to services such as classroom teachers and office staff funded by regular funds in schools with more affluent students.
The median amount added per school is $55,269, and it will not go far. Only 14 schools will receive enough to hire a reading teacher or counselor ($113,832). Hendley ES, the school with the highest concentration, receives $131,000, enough for a reading teacher but had lost $410,000 at-risk funds to pay for 1st and 2nd grade teachers ( NOT extra teachers for smaller classes, just standard class size), teachers paid with regular funds at every school West of the Park. Ballou HS, the only school with enough to hire two teachers or counselors, receives $251,000 but had lost $928,000 much of it for office staff and special education.
At-risk funds are not just syphoned off in small under-enrolled schools. Half the schools with enrollments over 500 lost more than 40% of their at-risk funds to cover special education and basic program for all students.
The data source for the analysis is the spreadsheet posted on https://dcpsbudget.com/budget-data/. The analysis compared the use of regular funds with what schools would have received under the Comprehensive Staffing Model (CSM), i.e., DCPS own definition of basic program for many years. Any shortfall made up with at-risk funds is attributed to improper diversion, while any other spending that might benefit at-risk students is treated as a legitimate at-risk cost, e.g, extra classroom teachers or counselors, and all items like reading teacher, in-school suspension, technology instructional coach, intervention assistant principal or coach.
Because of the wide variety of cost in the local school budgets as submitted, the analysis proceeded in two steps. The first (at-risk$$) arranges all budget items in the order used in the printed budgets, identifies the use of at-risk funds as appropriate or not and compiles some categories. It is the basis for the tab at-riskFTE, showing the number of full-time employees in each personal services column. The second (at-risk$$ (2)) combines categories for their match to the CSM and manageability (e.g., all non-personnel items, all office staff, all general education teachers) and adds up the appropriate and non-appropriate at-risk costs.
The at-risk allocations patterns often appear random and resemble those of the previous six years when they were clearly decided downtown, suggesting that many if not all decisions may not have been made by the schools themselves.
COLOR CODES all tabs
White: general education
Purple: general education formerly allocated by CSM, now to be covered by “discretionary” $$
Green: appropriate cost for at-risk funds
Red: not appropriate cost for at-risk funds
LIght blue-gray: special education cost
Bright blue: English Learners (ELL) cost
Brown: after school or credit recovery cost
Yellow: special program, e.g., IB, aquatics