Closing the Achievement
Gap:
Poverty Funding Calculation
Update
Michael Elliott
State School Fund Coordinator
Oregon Department of Education
Michael.s.elliott@state.or.us
Overview of Poverty Calculation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Previous Calculation
HB 2098
Data Set
Calculations
Case Study
Data Runs
Current Data
Two Sets of Data:
 Large districts (greater than 2,500 ADMr)
◦ Census Data
◦ Change in ADMr
Current Data
Small Districts (less than 2,500 ADMr)
• Greater of
• Census Data (see Large Districts)
• Portion of County’s Free and Reduced Lunch count
Current Data
•
Problems
• Accuracy
• Severity Changes
HB 2098
Rulemaking Authority
• Maintains 0.25 Weight
•
HB 2098: Legislative Intent
Accurate Data
• Generally accessible and accepted data
• Use U.S. Census Bureau data
•
HB 2098: District Concerns
•
No additional data collections
HB 2098: ODE Goals
Transparency
• Accuracy
•
What about Free and Reduced
Lunch Data?
Different Definition
• Known underreporting
• Accuracy concerns
•
Small Area Income Poverty
Estimate (SAIPE)
•
U.S. Census Bureau data
• http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/
Updated annually
• District level data
•
SAIPE
•
Statistical Model
• SNAP from U.S. Department of Agriculture
• IRS Data
• American Community Survey data
SAIPE
Data provided:
• Population of district
• Population age 5-17 in district
• Population of age 5-17 in families in
poverty
Poverty Calculation
Start with SAIPE Data
• Total Population age 5 to 17 in school
district
•
Poverty Calculation
Problem:
• Not all children attend public schools
• Need accurate population in public schools
Poverty Calculation
Solution:
• Use ADMr
• Percentage of children attending public
school
Poverty Calculation
•
1.
2.
2 Steps:
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡 𝐴𝐷𝑀𝑟
𝑆𝐴𝐼𝑃𝐸 5 𝑡𝑜 17 𝑃𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= % 𝑃𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑆𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
% 𝑃𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑆𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 ×
𝑆𝐴𝐼𝑃𝐸 𝑃𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 =
𝑃𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎
Poverty Calculation
Problem:
• Some ADMr to SAIPE 5 to 17 ratios will be
greater than 100%
• Charter School enrollment
• Inter-district transfers
• Open Enrollment
Poverty Calculation
Solution:
• Cap ADMr to SAIPE 5 to 17 ration to
100%
• District gets SAIPE maximum
• Charter schools receive district percentage
Does this work?
Salem Keizer:
1. SAIPE population age 5 to 17 = 45,269
2. ADMr = 37,999.07
3. SAIPE Poverty = 12,572
Does this work?
Salem Keizer:
• ADMr ÷ SAIPE
• 37,999.07 ÷ 45,269 = 83.94%
•
ADMr-SAIPE ratio × SAIPE Poverty
• 83.94% × 12,572 = 10,553.01
•
Change in weights = 904.66 increase
Does this work?
•
DHS and OHA published report on poverty
hotspots
• Hotspot is a high concentration of family in
poverty
Does this work?
•
Data Used:
• Oregon SNAP data
• Oregon Employment Data
• DHS client data
•
Available at:
http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/ofra/ofradocu
ments/High%20Poverty%20Hotspots%20
2013.pdf
Does this work?
•
SAIPE v. Free and Reduced Lunch
140,000
300,000
130,000
290,000
120,000
280,000
110,000
270,000
100,000
260,000
90,000
250,000
80,000
240,000
70,000
230,000
60,000
220,000
50,000
210,000
40,000
200,000
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SAIPE
FRLP
Data Sets
Two data sets:
1. 2014-15 v 2014-15 Poverty Change
2. 2012-13 v 2013-14 ADMw
Data Sets
First Data Set
• Compares change in poverty
• Change in weights
• Change in projected funding
Data Sets
Second Data Set
• ADMw for 2012-13 compared to 2013-14
• Shows extended ADMw interaction with
poverty weights
• Extended ADMw calculation
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #1: Redmond SD
1. Poverty increased
2. Total funding increased
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #1: Redmond SD
 Poverty increased
◦

Increase of 273.53 to 443.49
Extended ADMw increased
◦ Increase of 273.53 to 8,166.64

Increase weights more than loss of $$/wt
◦ Increase of $1,940,717
◦ $$/wt loss of $336,302
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #2: Bandon SD
1. Poverty decreased
2. Total funding decreased
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #2: Bandon SD
 Poverty decreased
◦
Decrease of 14.43 to 36.77
Extended ADMw remained the same
 Increase weights less than loss of $/wt

◦ Same weights
◦ $/wt loss of $38,602.69
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #3: Corvallis SD
1. Poverty increased
2. Total funding decreased
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #3: Corvallis SD
 Poverty increased
◦

Increase of 36.4 to 254.93
Extended ADMw increased
◦ Increase of 0.43 to 7,128.17

Increase weights less than loss of $/wt
◦ Increase of $3,049
◦ $/wt loss of $293,965
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #3: Corvallis
Breakdown extended ADMw:
1. Greater ADMw between 2013-14 and
2012-13
2. Charter school ADMw counted separate
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #3: Corvallis
Extended ADMw
School
2012-13
ADMw
2013-14
ADMw
Extended
ADMw
Non-Charter
7,021.40
6,861.20
7,021.40
Muddy Creek
97.03
106.35
106.35
TOTAL
•
7,127.74
Non-charter ADMw Difference: 160.20
Data Set #1: 3 Outcomes
Outcome #3: Corvallis
Extended ADMw
• 2013-14 ADMw has to increase by more
than 160.2 to affect funding level
Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
HB 2098: more accurate and up-to-date
SAIPE: district level with annual updates
Calculation: (ADMr/SAIPE Pop)* SAIPE
Poverty
3 outcomes
Next Steps
QUESTIONS?