Training for the RevisedCost Based Block Grant

June 4, 2002

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 3

SECTION 1A: UNDERSTANDING THE BLOCK GRANT CONCEPT ............. 3

SECTION 1B: WYOMING FUNDING MODEL OVERVIEW ............................ 5

SECTION 1C: WYOMING FUNDING MODEL SPREADSHEET...................... 5

SECTION 2: THE SPREADSHEET – INTRODUCTION........................................ 6

SECTION 2A: THE SPREADSHEET – PROCESS OVERVIEW......................... 6

SECTION 2B: THE SPREADSHEET – LAYOUT ................................................. 9

SECTION 2B-1: THE BASE SHEET....................................................................... 9

SECTION 2B-2: DATA ENTRY SHEET.............................................................. 11

SECTION 2B-3: COMPONENT WORKSHEETS AND COLUMNS.................. 12

SECTION 3: RECOSTING THE BLOCK GRANT ................................................ 14

SECTION 3A: NONPERSONNEL COSTS AND SUBSTITUTE TEACHER PAYADJUSTMENTS ..................................................................................................... 14

SECTION 3B: SMALL SCHOOLS....................................................................... 17

SECTION 3C: SMALL DISTRICTS .................................................................... 18

SECTION 3D: AT-RISK STUDENTS .................................................................. 21

SECTION 3E: TEACHING PERSONNEL ........................................................... 25SECTION 3E-1: TEACHING PERSONNEL – QUANTITY ............................................................. 25SECTION 3E-2: TEACHING PERSONNEL – SALARIES............................................................... 25

SECTION 3F: ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES .................................................. 29SECTION 3F-1: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION.............................................................................. 30SECTION 3F-2: SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................. 32

SECTION 3G: CLASSIFIED SALARIES ............................................................ 36SECTION 3G-1: CENTRAL CLASSIFIED STAFF............................................................................. 36SECTION 3G-2: SCHOOL CLASSIFIED STAFF ............................................................................... 36

SECTION 3H: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS ...................................... 38

SECTION 3I: SPECIAL EDUCATION AND TRANSPORTATION .................. 40

2

SECTION 3J: REGIONAL COST ADJUSTMENT............................................. 40

SECTION 3K: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION .................................................... 41

APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READINGS........................................................ 43

APPENDIX II: DEFINITION OF “THE BASKET” ................................................ 44

APPENDIX III: TOOLBAR ACTIVATION............................................................. 45

APPENDIX IV: USING THE SPREADSHEET FOR PLANNING......................... 46

APPENDIX V: PROTOTYPES ................................................................................. 47

3

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

This training is based on the assumption that you have read at least the MAPreport, “Proposed Revisions to the Cost Based Block Grant” (January 31, 2002),and have reviewed the “Wyoming Funding Model, v 3.2b” (February 20, 2002).

On February 23, 2001 the Wyoming Supreme Court handed down its ruling inCampbell County v State of Wyoming. This is the fourth school finance decision since1971. In this most recent decision the Court accepts the Cost Based Block Granteducation finance model as constitutional. It also, however, found certain provisions ofthe model unconstitutional and ruled that the Legislature must remedy theseunconstitutional provisions on or before July 1, 2002.

The Court found the basic methodology underlying the Cost Based Block Grantand the methodology for computing teacher salaries constitutional. It required, however,that the model be revised to reflect cost changes since 1996-97 when the original modelwas developed and further required specific modifications to various adjustments that itfound to be unconstitutional. These include:

• Administrative salaries• Classified wages• Vocational education• At-risk students• Regional cost• Small schools• Small districts• Maintenance and operations

In its most recent session, the Legislature enacted changes that updated all underlyingcosts to be current as of July 1, 2001 and modified the various adjustments to beconsistent with the Court’s ruling.

SECTION 1A: UNDERSTANDING THE BLOCK GRANTCONCEPT

Wyoming school districts are funded through a Cost Based Block Grant. CostBased means that the amount a particular district receives depends on the specificcharacteristics of that district that raise or lower the actual costs that that district faces.Block Grant means that most of the funding for operating local schools is received byschool districts in the form of a lump sum of money that school districts can spend forvirtually any legal purpose. The Cost Based Block Grant was conceived to serve twoimportant purposes. First, it was to respond to the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling that thefunding for every student in Wyoming be identical except where there was a cost-basedrationale for providing more or less funding. The second purpose was to preserve as

4

much local control as possible by providing local decision makers the maximumflexibility to allocate resources to meet local needs and priorities.

MAP developed the block grant in 1997 using what is generally known as theprofessional judgment method. The first step in the professional judgment process was todefine that which is to be produced, i.e., the basket,1 for whom, i.e., the studentpopulation, and in what context, i.e., school levels and sizes. MAP then developed threeschool prototypes—a kindergarten through grade 5 elementary school of 288 students, agrades 6-8 middle school of 300 students, and a 9-12 high school of 600 students. Thestudent population in these prototypes reflected the statewide average characteristics ofWyoming students including poverty, minority status, and English proficiency.

Next, consulting educators, research, and professional organizations, MAPcompiled the nature and quantity of resources necessary to deliver the basket to theprototypical student population. These resources included teachers, administrators,materials and supplies, funding for teacher training, etc.

Once the nature of the resources was identified and the quantity of each wasdetermined, market prices for each of the resources were sought. MAP did not merelyaverage current expenditures. Had this been the case, the total amount of funding madeavailable statewide would have not changed. Where market prices were not available, asin the case of educator salaries, MAP sought surrogate prices that could be justified byeconomic theory. Once prices were determined, they were multiplied by the quantity ofeach resource and summed to derive an overall cost for each of the prototypes.

It was never intended that Wyoming school districts mimic the resource allocationpattern implied in the prototypes. The prototypes merely served as an example of oneway that resources could be combined to deliver the basket. Other ways may be moreexpensive or less expensive, depending on the preferences, the skills, and abilities of theeducators employed by the school districts. The prototypes produced a total amountadequate to deliver the basket consistent with the Court’s ruling.

If each school in Wyoming were identical to the prototypes, every school districtwould receive the prototypical amount of funding. But, schools vary from the prototypesin terms of student and teacher characteristics. Some students require additional resourcesto achieve up to their academic potential. Some teachers are paid more because they havetaught longer or acquired additional educational credits. The cost of living in some schooldistricts is greater than average and some small schools and small districts facediseconomies of scale that increase cost per student. Thus, the model included a series ofadjustments that compensated for the unique cost characteristics of each school. It isimportant to note, therefore, that at the time the Cost Based Block Grant was enacted,every similarly situated child enjoyed the same level of resources available for his or hereducational program. That is, in terms of real dollars, every school district receivedprecisely (or as nearly precise as it was possible to determine) the same funding.

1 See Appendix II for the “basket” of educational courses and skills specified in law.

5

SECTION 1B: WYOMING FUNDING MODEL OVERVIEW

Provided here is a quick and simplified view of the funding calculation process:1. Basic funding elements

a. Three-year rolling ADM multiplied by prototypical $/ADMb. Adjustment for each year of teacher seniority, capped at 20 yearsc. Regional Cost of Living adjustment applied to 85 percent of all funding,

excluding 100 percent reimbursablesd. Maintenance and Operations adjustment applied using both ADM and square

footage drivers unique to the district

2. Economy of scale and fine-tuning funding elementsa. Small School adjustment - uses three-year rolling ADM at that school and

applies an economy of scale adjustment for personnel costs, utilities, andactivities for all schools smaller than the prototypes

b. Small District adjustment – uses three-year rolling average for that district andapplies an economy of scale adjustment if the ADM generates fewer fundsthan would be received under the prototypes.

c. Adjustments for administrator responsibility level, education and experienceand classified staff experience levels

d. At-risk funding for concentrations above statewide averagese. External Cost adjustments are applied at Legislative direction to recognize

inflation since the last model recalibration

3. Reimbursable funding elementsa. Special Education eligible costsb. Transportation – student route, activities, and field trips – operations and bus

acquisitionsc. Extra teacher compensation – typically, unique costs related to housing staff

in remote locations.

SECTION 1C: WYOMING FUNDING MODEL SPREADSHEET

The Wyoming Funding Model Spreadsheet (the Spreadsheet) was developed tocalculate the funding allocations to the 48 school districts of Wyoming based on the CostBased Block Grant funding model. The Spreadsheet encompasses the changes made tothe individual components that make up the Cost Based Block Grant to comply with theWyoming Supreme Court’s decisions concerning those components.

The Spreadsheet calculates the per-pupil allocations for the various componentsof the Cost Based Block Grant funding model based on the count and characteristics ofdistrict schools’ average daily membership (ADM) and sums them into a total per-pupilallocation for each district. Each district’s total per-pupil allocation is then multiplied bythe district’s three-year rolling ADM to arrive at the district’s total funding allocationfrom the Cost Based Block Grant.

6

SECTION 2: THE SPREADSHEET – INTRODUCTION

The Wyoming Cost Based Block Grant consists of several individual components.Each component addresses the diversity of Wyoming school districts and the childrenthat those districts serve. The Spreadsheet is a Microsoft Excel workbook that consists ofseveral inter-related worksheets. These worksheets consist of the data and formulas thatmake up the cost-based components of the Cost Based Block Grant.

The individual spreadsheets are of six different types:

1. The Base Sheet that shows the funding levels generated for each district ineach of the worksheets

2. A Data Entry worksheet showing legislated parameters3. Parts of the old model that are funded based on expenditures (special ed

and transportation)4. Parts of the old model the court ruled must be revised

Categories 3 and 4 are contained within the Reductions worksheet

5. The remaining parts of the old model that the court found constitutionaland need not be changed but that need to be updated for inflation

6. Utility worksheets (ADM and WCLI, for instance)

The per-pupil allocations from each component are driven formulaically. Theformulas in each component worksheet derive from the reports provided to theLegislature.2 The Spreadsheet is only the tool to calculate the per-pupil allocations basedon the component formula justifications found in the reports.3

Additionally, the Spreadsheet only addresses the funding model as submitted(with corrections) to the Secretary of State and does not contain any legislative provisionssuch as hold harmless.

SECTION 2A: THE SPREADSHEET – PROCESS OVERVIEW

The construction layout of the Spreadsheet follows the process used to retain whatthe Court left intact and to make the changes it directed. Following is a narrative of theeffort using the Base Sheet worksheet. The Base Sheet is the first worksheet (tab)labeled in the workbook. The Base Sheet shows the per-pupil allocations to each districtfor each Cost Based Block Grant component based on information and calculated valuesin the respective worksheets.

2 Component reports can be found with the Wyoming Legislature www.legisweb.state.wy.us or through theManagement Analysis & Planning, Inc. Web site at www.edconsultants.com.3 See Appendix III for instructions on how to activate the auditing toolbar within Microsoft Excel. Thisfunction assists Spreadsheet users in seeing the interdependency of cells within and between worksheetsthroughout the Spreadsheet.

7

To arrive at district funding, the model starts with composite funding from the oldmodel (column 1), removes special education and transportation (column 2), and removesitems that must be recalculated due to the courts ruling (column 3). The funding of theremaining items (column 4) (consisting of non-personnel and substitute teaching, etc.)has been deemed constitutional but must be updated for inflation (column 5). Columns 6through 14 contain the individual funding categories that the Court has mandated berevised. For example, column 6 contains the calculation of funding for small schooladjustments that has been revised in response to the Court ruling. The sum of Columns 5through 14 (column 15) must be updated to 2002 using the external cost adjustment(column 16). Funding levels are further adjusted for regional cost-of-living differences(column 17) to generate column 18. Columns 19-27 are non-formulaic adjustments. Theper-ADM funding is given in column 28 (the sum of columns 18-27). Multiplying thisnumber by the district ADM generates total district funding (column 29). See Figure 1 fora visual representation of these actions.

8

Figu

re 1

: How

the

mod

el w

orks

Com

pos

ite

Fun

din

g

Spec

ial E

d &

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Red

ucti

ons

subt

ract

Com

pos

ite

Aft

erR

edu

ctio

ns

WC

LI

Ad

just

edC

omp

osit

e

WC

LI

mul

tipl

ied

CO

MPO

NE

NT

S(e

.g.,

smal

l sch

ools

,M

&O

, cla

ssif

ied

)st

aff)

OT

HE

RA

DD

-IN

SL

EG

ISL

AT

IVE

AD

JUST

ME

NT

S

add

Reg

ion

ally

Ad

just

edU

pd

ated

Com

pos

ite

w/C

omp

onen

ts

Tot

al D

istr

ict P

er-

AD

M F

un

din

g L

evel

s

Reg

iona

lC

ost

Ad

just

men

tm

ulti

plie

d

TO

TA

L D

IST

RIC

TFU

ND

ING

LE

VE

LS

Dis

tric

t AD

M m

ulti

plie

d

add

SPE

CIA

L E

D &

TR

AN

SPO

RT

AT

ION

9

SECTION 2B: THE SPREADSHEET – LAYOUT

Explanations for each of these steps follows, and is highly oriented to the separateworksheet tabs within the Spreadsheet. The Spreadsheet is made up of several individualworksheets shown along the bottom of the workbook (see Figure 2).

SECTION 2B-1: THE BASE SHEET

The Base Sheet worksheet is the first place that each user should start when usingthe Wyoming Funding Model Spreadsheet. The Base Sheet is where all of the calculatedper-ADM funding values for each of the Cost Based Block Grant components aredisplayed for every district in Wyoming following the process detailed in Figure 1. Fromthese values, the Base Sheet calculates each district’s total per-ADM funding allocationand each district’s total Cost Based Block Grant funding allocation.

10

Figu

re 2

: The

Spr

eads

heet

and

Com

pone

nt W

orks

heet

s

11

SECTION 2B-2: DATA ENTRY SHEET

The Base Sheet only provides information based on the formulas and dataembedded throughout the Spreadsheet and based on selected parameters set by theLegislature. Those parameters are found on the Data Entry worksheet (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Data Entry Sheet

The Data Entry worksheet serves the primary purpose of displaying a summaryof legislated parameters that make up the funding and delivery model. These dataparameters affect calculated values throughout the Spreadsheet. Those legislatedcomponents data found on the Data Entry worksheet describe the nature and quantity ofresources necessary to deliver the basket to the prototypical student population and thecost of those resources.

Figure 4 shows the interdependency of the Spreadsheet based from the DataEntry worksheet. The value entered in cell B21 (the number one) directly influences theADM By Grade worksheet cell C11 that, then, designates the ADM figure to be used inall per-ADM calculations throughout the Spreadsheet. As legislated, the three-yearrolling average of school years 2000-01, 1999-00, and 1998-99 is used in all per-ADMcalculations. As a practical matter, FY03 Pro Forma ADM Funding is more accuratelyportrayed by selection 3.

12

Figure 4: The Data Entry worksheet and Spreadsheet Interdependency

As a secondary functional purpose, the Data Entry worksheet can also be usedfor simulation. In theory, any parameter can be changed and any parameter change wouldaffect district-generated funding levels. However, legislative action would have to betaken in order for those changes to become law. The Data Entry worksheet provides theability to see the effects on funding levels based on unofficial changes to the nature,quantity, and price of resources. Appendix IV describes how the Spreadsheet might beused for these types of simulation purposes.

SECTION 2B-3: COMPONENT WORKSHEETS AND COLUMNS

As mentioned, the Cost Based Block Grant is made up of several individualcomponents. Each component has unique formulas that provide resources to schooldistricts according to student, school, and district needs and circumstances with cost-based analysis and justification. The 11 component worksheets found in the Spreadsheetare:

• Small School• Small District• EDY-LES Students (At-Risk Students)• Teacher Salaries

13

• Central Administration• School Administration• Central Classified Staff• School Classified Staff• Operations & Maintenance• Special Education• Transportation

These 11 component worksheet tabs can be seen along the bottom of the Spreadsheetafter the Base Sheet and Data Entry worksheet tabs and after three data worksheet tabs(described next). The generated results from these 11 component worksheets are reflectedon the Base Sheet in columns 6-14 and columns 20-21. There is a column for VocationalEducation (column 19), which serves as a placeholder for future adjustments. There is nota worksheet associated with this funding column at the time that this manual was written.

To calculate the final Cost Based Block Grant district allocations, the Spreadsheetalso includes three data worksheets used to calculate per-pupil and total districtallocations. These three worksheets are:

• ADM By Grade – this sheet provides ADM data to be used in all per-pupilcalculations. It includes actual ADM figures from school year 2000-01, 1999-00,and 1998-99, as well as the 60-day ADM report data from 2001-02.

• Reductions – this sheet computes the reductions to the old composite prototype-funding amount. What remains are those components that are to be adjusted bythe Wyoming Cost of Living Index (WCLI).

• WCLI – this sheet serves multiple inflation/cost of living related purposes;o Determines the rate of inflation to be used for applying the historic

inflation to the selected prototype components;o External cost adjustments; the computation is based on the WCLI

computed for the second quarter of each year (typically in early to mid-July of each year).

o Regional Cost of Living Adjustments

The tabs for these data worksheets can be seen along the bottom of the Spreadsheetafter the Base Sheet and Data Entry worksheet tabs and before the 11 componentworksheet tabs.

The Spreadsheet includes two additional worksheets, the Other Add Ins worksheetand Legislative Adjustments worksheet, which provide information used to determinefunding levels for Wyoming districts on the Base Sheet. The Other Add Ins worksheetincludes funding provided to districts for Bus Reimbursements (After and Prior to 1998),Transportation Isolation and Maintenance, Teacher Extra Compensation, and SpecialTuition. The funding values per district for each of these items are found on the BaseSheet in columns 22-26. The Legislative Adjustments worksheet provides theLegislature the ability to include additional special programs for schools. Any specialprogram funding on this worksheet would appear in column 27 of the Base Sheet.

14

Although there is not a separate worksheet for an External Cost Adjustment, theSpreadsheet includes a provision for this type of adjustment. At present, there is noExternal Cost Adjustment affecting the funding model or the Spreadsheet. For simulationpurposes, the Data Entry worksheet includes a section to determine possible effects ofimplementing such an adjustment. The amount and timing of any inflation impactsapproved by the Legislature would be entered into cells B113-116 on the Data Entryworksheet, with the cumulative effect in cell C118 of the Data Entry worksheet beingapplied to Base Sheet column 15 and reflected in column 16.

SECTION 3: RECOSTING THE BLOCK GRANT

The Wyoming Supreme Court found constitutional the basic methodology of theCost Based Block Grant. This section shows how the various components of the CostBased Block Grant were updated and revised in compliance with the Court’s ruling. Thissection follows the order of the Base Sheet columns starting with details on how specificcomponents of the previous funding model – found constitutional by the Court – wererevised to reflect cost changes and details how certain components were modified incompliance with the Court’s decision.

SECTION 3A: NONPERSONNEL COSTS AND SUBSTITUTETEACHER PAY ADJUSTMENTS

In its ruling, the Wyoming Supreme Court required revisions to certain aspects ofthe funding model to reflect cost changes since 1996-97. There are several items withinthe funding model that were increased by the accumulated WCLI – the value of thecompound growth in Wyoming price inflation since 1997 – to account for the inflation ofcosts over time. Nonpersonnel costs and the substitute teacher component were includedin the original prototype models and were calculated into the old prototype fundinglevels.

The following nonpersonnel costs were inflated by the value of the accumulatedWCLI (13.2875 percent) to reflect costs effective July 1, 2001.

• Supplies and Instructional Materials• Equipment• Gifted• Student Activities• Professional Development• Assessment

Food services are assumed to be supported through federal subsidies and chargesfor meals equal to their cost.

15

Additionally, the component of the funding model that previously allocated fundsfor substitute teachers at the rate of $60 per day was increased to $68 per day based onchanges in the WCLI. This represents over a 13 percent increase in funds in this categoryas part of the block grant and is somewhat higher than what districts actually pay in 2001-02.

The adjustment for nonpersonnel costs and substitute teacher pay has beencaptured within the Base Sheet (Figure 5, column 5).

Figure 5: Nonpersonnel and substitute teacher WCLI Adjustment

Column 2 (Composite Model Funding Under the Old Model) shows the oldfunding levels for each district. To adjust the nonpersonnel and substitute teacher costs bythe WCLI, those items that are to be adjusted by the WCLI must, first, be separated out ofthe old funding levels.

Step 1: Subtract out Special Education and Transportation ReductionsColumn 2 (Composite Model Funding Under Old Model) is computed from the

weighted-pupil average of the old prototype funding levels (taken from the Data Entryworksheet) multiplied by the district’s ADM for each grade-level prototype (taken fromthe ADM By Grade worksheet), all divided by the district’s Total K-12 1/2 K ADM

16

(taken from the ADM By Grade worksheet) to arrive at the per-ADM funding level foreach district.

From each district’s old per-ADM funding level are subtracted per-ADM specialeducation and transportation funding (taken from the Reductions worksheet, cell B12 –shown in Figure 6) – the remainder shown in column 3 of the Base Sheet worksheet(shown in Figure 5).

Step 2: Subtract out Total Salary ReductionsFrom the per-ADM funding level for each district in column 3 of the Base Sheet

are subtracted each district’s per-weighted ADM total salary reductions – calculated bymultiplying the total per-ADM salary reductions for each prototype (taken from theReductions worksheet, cells B88-90 – shown in Figure 6) by each district’s ADM foreach grade-level prototype (again, taken from the ADM By Grade worksheet), alldivided by the district’s Total K-12 1/2 K ADM.

Figure 6: Reductions Used in Base Sheet CalculationsNote: Rows 13-86 were hidden from view in Figure 6 to show the two sets of reductions used in thisdiscussion

17

Step 3: WCLI AdjustmentThe remainder, shown in column 4 of the Base Sheet, consists of those items in

the old prototype models that should be adjusted by the WCLI to reflect cost differencesover time. The value in column 4 of the Base Sheet for each district is then multiplied bythe determined WCLI value (1.13287507, taken from the Data Entry worksheet, cellC29 – which is taken from a calculated value from the WCLI worksheet, cell C27) andshown in column 5 of the Base Sheet. The WCLI-adjusted, per-ADM values for eachdistrict in column 5 are then a part of the district’s Total Resources Per ADM calculationin the Base Sheet.

SECTION 3B: SMALL SCHOOLS

The Wyoming Supreme Court found the small school adjustmentunconstitutional, declaring that the adjustment was not sufficiently cost based, and thatthe funding cut off points appeared to be arbitrary. The revised adjustment takes intoaccount the Court’s concerns, and compensates for real cost differences among schools ofvarious sizes. All schools smaller than the prototypes receive additional funding tocompensate for costs associated with size.

The formula for schools smaller than the regular prototypes is based on a series ofregressions that estimate the number of teachers required to deliver the required basketfor various levels of enrollment. Teacher salaries are based on the new prototype salaryamount (see Teacher Salaries worksheet, section 3E-2). Non-teacher personnel and non-personnel costs are based on 1996-97 costs inflated by the WCLI.

Under the previous adjustment, all small schools were reimbursed 100 percent forutilities and student activities, and, under certain conditions, for a portion of their foodservices costs. The Court found this practice suspect. For that reason, the Legislatureenacted a cost-based function that covers the costs of student activities and utilities; andtherefore no longer directly reimburses these expenditures for any school.

The Small School worksheet determines if each school qualifies for a smallschool adjustment based on its enrollment in comparison to the enrollments in theprototypes. The small school adjustments in the Small School worksheet must pass aseries of logic tests before any calculations are made. For example, an elementary schoolwould only qualify for a small school adjustment if its enrollment was below theelementary school prototype enrollment, but would not if its enrollment was above theelementary school prototype.

Step 1: Calculate Incremental Number of TeachersCells I52-K582 determine first, what type of school is in question, if its enrollment isbelow the appropriate prototype enrollment, and, if so, how many incremental teachersthe school generates for funding using a VLOOKUP table (i.e., vertical lookup) locatedin cells AA29-AH631 in the Small School worksheet. The number of incrementalteachers is calculated using the following formula:

18

VLOOKUP # Teachers – (School ADM * Prototype # Teachers / Prototype Enrollment)

In other words, the small school adjustment determines how many incremental teachersshould be funded beyond what the prototype model determines to be funded based on theprototype funding model.

Step 2: Determine Dollar Adjustments for Incremental TeachersAfter determining the number of incremental teachers to be funded, cells L52-

N582 calculate the dollar adjustments for the number of incremental elementary, middle,and high school teachers. The values in I52-K582 are multiplied by the Base TeacherCompensation of $37,324.64 found in cell C21 of the Small School worksheet (valuetaken from Data Entry worksheet cell F53).

Step 3: Determine Non-Teacher Personnel Cost AdjustmentsCells P52-P582 calculate the non-teacher personnel cost adjustments for those

schools with ADM enrollments below the prototype levels. Another VLOOKUP table isutilized in the calculation; this VLOOKUP table is found in cells AL29-AO631.

Step 4: Determine Utilities and Activities Cost AdjustmentsCells Q52-Q582 calculate the utilities cost adjustment for those schools with

ADM enrollments below the prototype levels. Cells S52-S582 calculate the activities costadjustments for those small schools. Another VLOOKUP table is utilized in both of thecalculations; this VLOOKUP table is found in cells BA33-BJ632. Utilities adjustmentfactors are provided in separate columns than the activities adjustment factors in the sameVLOOKUP table for all three prototypes.

Step 5: Calculate Per-ADM Total Small School Adjustment for Each DistrictCells T52-T582 calculate the total small school adjustments for each school by

adding columns O-S. As with many adjustments in the funding model and calculated inthe Spreadsheet, these adjustments are generated by the individual school and provided totheir respective districts. Each school’s total small school adjustment is summed intodistrict totals found in cells J590-J639 of the Small School worksheet. The per-ADMsmall schools adjustments for each district are shown on the Base Sheet in column 6,determined by dividing the district’s total small schools adjustment by the district’s K-121/2 K ADM (from the ADM By Grade worksheet).

SECTION 3C: SMALL DISTRICTS

The Supreme Court found the existing small district adjustment unconstitutionaland held that, “If the legislature is convinced small school districts are not properlyfunded, any adjustment must be based upon documented shortfalls under the MAP modelthat are not equally suffered by larger districts.”

19

Based on an analyses of various data sources, MAP constructed a series ofprototypes to estimate the central administration costs districts of various sizes wouldincur to deliver the “basket.” These analyses revealed that for the smallest size prototype(250 or fewer students), the minimum staffing of a district office would include one eachsuperintendent, business manager, curriculum and instruction coordinator, technologycoordinator, and two clerical positions. An additional central office administrator isadded at 550 students; and at 1000 students, two additional central office staff and oneadditional clerical positions are added.

Table 1: Personnel in Small District Prototypes

Number of PersonnelDistrict

Size Supt.BusinessManager

Curric. &Inst. Tech.

OtherCentral Clerical

250 1 1 1 1 0 2550 1 1 1 1 1 2

1,000 1 1 1 1 2 3

Previously MAP recommended that districts with fewer than 1,350 studentsreceive an additional $50,000 for each attendance center beyond the one in which thecentral office is located. The Court agreed with the plaintiffs that this adjustment was notcost based. The new small district adjustment eliminates that adjustment.

The Small District worksheet calculates each qualifying district’s small districtadjustment. Cell H45, shown in Figure 7, is the determined district enrollment cutoff forsmall district adjustment eligibility.

20

Figure 7: Small District Adjustment

Step 1: Determine Small District AdjustmentIf a district’s ADM is above 1,001 students (cell H45), then the district does not

qualify for a small district adjustment. If, however, district ADM is lower than 1,001students, then cells C52-C99 figure the appropriate small district adjustment according tocells G39-G41.4

Step 2: Calculate Per-ADM Small District AdjustmentCells D52-D99 calculate each district’s small district adjustment per ADM by

dividing each district’s adjustment (column C) by its ADM (column B – taken from theADM By Grade worksheet).

Step 3: Calculate Total District Per-ADM Small District AdjustmentFrom each district’s per-ADM small district adjustment must be subtracted the

per-ADM central administration funding level. The small district adjustment is a totalfunding level for central administration staff for districts of given sizes (determined by

4 The ADM of 1,001 for the small district adjustment is the calculated point where districts wouldbenefit from either the small district adjustment or the prototypical allocation. This point couldchange over time depending upon the amount of funding for the prototypes.

21

ADM). However, the funding model already funds central administration staff for eachdistrict – shown in the Central Admin worksheet and reflected in the Base Sheet.

However, the funding model provides funds for central administration for eachdistrict in worksheet Central Admin. Therefore, to determine the incremental per-ADMsmall district adjustment, the per-ADM central administration funding from the CentralAdmin worksheet must be subtracted from the per-ADM small district adjustment. CellsE52-E99 show each district’s per-ADM central administration funding from the CentralAdmin worksheet.

Cells F52-F99 calculate the incremental small district adjustment per ADM foreach district. These funding values are then reflected in the Base Sheet in column 7.

SECTION 3D: AT-RISK STUDENTS

The Wyoming Supreme Court found the current formula for funding programs forat-risk students unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the State must either fullyreimburse (with or without state oversight) school district expenditures for at-risk andlimited English speaking (LES) students, or establish an accurate formula with which todistribute adequate funds to educate at-risk students.

The Legislature enacted the following:

• The level of at-risk funding is based on the portion of the student populationrepresented by an unduplicated count of students eligible for free or reduced-pricelunch or who are identified as limited English speaking – student populationsaccepted by educators, researchers, and the federal and other state governments tobe effective proxies for the presence of at-risk students.

• As in the previous model, at-risk funding is generated by student characteristics ina school, but would be provided to the school district as part of the block grant.

• The enacted adjustment provides additional resources when the unduplicatedproportion of qualifying students exceeds the state average.

• Additional funding is provided as the concentrations of qualifying studentsincreases in a school.

At the highest levels of concentration, each qualifying student generates anamount equal to 25 percent of the consolidated prototype funding level. At lower levelsof concentration, the amount of funding per qualifying student is less than 25 percent,depending on the level of concentration.

The prototypes were developed based on an assumption of average studentdemographics. Thus, the prototypes contemplated an average population of at-risk

22

students and provided sufficient funding to meet their needs. Therefore, all districtsalready receive funding associated with average levels of at-risk students.

Data Source: Unclear which forms are used at this point and need to be refined to gatherunduplicated count

The EDY-LES worksheet incorporates the changes to funding schools for at-riskstudents and shown in Figure 8.

State Average Qualifying Student Concentration: 27.98 percent (cell M4) – comes fromthe Data Entry worksheet (cell G122). This figure is an estimate of the lower bound forSY01-02 based only on free and reduced-lunch student counts. Once the actualunduplicated count is determined, this figure will not change until the model isrecalibrated, therefore fixed at SY01-02 experiences.

Base adjustment value per qualifying student: $1,973.99 (cell N2). This was computed bymultiplying 0.25 to the computed state per-ADM subtotal – multiplying each district’sper-ADM subtotal to each district’s K-12 1/2 K ADM, summing them together, anddividing that state subtotal by the state’s K-12 1/2 K ADM from the Base Sheet.

The concentration multipliers for funding: cells O4-O11. These concentration multipliersdetermine how much of the base adjustment ($1,973.99) is provided per qualifyingstudent at each school according to its EDY-LES student concentration (cells M4-N11).

23

Figure 8: At-Risk Students (EDY-LES) Worksheet

Example 1: School X with enrollment of 100 students and an “at-risk” studentconcentration of 29 percent – 29 students

Step 1: Determine Concentration MultiplierSchool X’s “at-risk” student concentration of 29 percent is in the first band of

concentration above the state average concentration (between cells M4 and N4). This firstband of concentration has a concentration multiplier of 0.175 (cell O4).

Step 2: Calculate Number of Qualifying Students for Supplemental FundingSubtract the State Average Concentration (27.98 percent) from School X’s

concentration (29 percent) to equal 1.02 percent of the school’s enrollment. Only those

24

qualifying students above the state average at-risk concentration receive supplementalfunding. In this example, 1.02-qualifying students would receive supplemental at-riskstudent funding.

Step 3: Calculate Supplemental At-Risk Student Funding for School XThe base adjustment is $1,973.99. Because School X’s qualifying student

concentration is within the first concentration band, 0.175 of the base adjustment fundingwould be provided to the eligible number of qualifying students. Supplemental at-riskfunding of $345.45 per qualifying student in this concentration band multiplied by thenumber of qualifying students (1.02 students) is the level of supplemental at-risk studentfunding for School X. School X, in this example, would generate $352.38 for its districtin supplemental at-risk funding.

Example 2: School Y with enrollment of 500 students and an “at-risk” studentconcentration of 50 percent – 250 students

Step 1: Determine Concentration MultiplierSchool Y’s “at-risk” student concentration of 50 percent is in the middle band of

concentration above the state average concentration (between cells M8 and N8). Thisband of concentration has a concentration multiplier of 0.650 (cell O8). However, not allqualifying students at School Y generate at-risk funding using this multiplier. Only thenumbers of students in that band generate that level of funding. Funding per qualifyingstudent above the state average increases incrementally as concentrations increase.

Step 2: Calculate Number of Qualifying Students for Supplemental FundingBand1: 30.00 percent – 27.98 percent = 2.02 percent * 500 students = 10.1

studentsBand 2: 35.00 percent – 30.00 percent = 5.00 percent * 500 students = 25 studentsBand 3: 40.00 percent – 35.00 percent = 5.00 percent * 500 students = 25 studentsBand 4: 45.00 percent – 40.00 percent = 5.00 percent * 500 students = 25 studentsBand 5: 50.00 percent – 45.00 percent = 5.00 percent * 500 students = 25 students

Step 3: Calculate Supplemental At-Risk Student Funding for School XBecause School Y’s qualifying student concentration is within the middle

concentration band, incrementally greater levels of the base adjustment funding would beprovided to the eligible number of qualifying students in each concentration band up toSchool Y’s concentration level. The level of per-qualifying ADM funding in eachconcentration band is determined by multiplying the base adjustment ($1,973.99) and theassociated multiplier for each concentration level band (cells O4-O11). For instance,supplemental at-risk funding of $345.45 per qualifying student is generated for the firstconcentration band ($1,973.99 * 0.175).

Band 1: 5.1 students * ($1,973.99 * 0.175) = $3,489.03Band 2: 25 students * ($1,973.99 * 0.350) = $17,272.50Band 3: 25 students * ($1,973.99 * 0.450) = $22,207.50

25

Band 4: 25 students * ($1,973.99 * 0.550) = $27,142.25Band 5: 25 students * ($1,973.99 * 0.650) = $32,077.25

Total School Y At-Risk Funding = $102,188.53

If this hypothetical school’s at-risk funding was calculated within theSpreadsheet, the total at-risk funding generated by this school would be $0.20 higher dueto manual rounding shown in this example.

As concentrations of qualifying students increase above the state average, thosequalifying students in each concentration band generate funding equal to the product ofthe associated concentration multipliers and base adjustment funding level. If a schoolhas concentrations below the state average, the school is not penalized and no funding isdeducted from the district.

SECTION 3E: TEACHING PERSONNEL

The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the methodology used to determine thestaffing levels in each prototype was not unreasonable and the methodology fordetermining salaries was acceptable. This subsection provides further commentary oneach of these areas and shows how teacher salaries were updated for 2001-02.

SECTION 3E-1: TEACHING PERSONNEL – QUANTITY

In its February 2001 decision the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled, “[t]hat theevidence in this record indicates that the class sizes adopted in the 1999 legislation werenot unreasonable.” The Legislature, therefore, did not augment staffing in the model.5

SECTION 3E-2: TEACHING PERSONNEL – SALARIES

The Supreme Court accepted the State’s approach for funding teachers based onestablishing a competitive starting salary, and adjusting for teacher experience andeducation, contingent on total funding being adequate to meet the state’s educationalgoals. Teacher salaries are handled in two separate sections of the Spreadsheet. First, baseteacher compensation is displayed on the Data Entry worksheet. Second, adjustments forexperience are calculated on the Teacher Salaries worksheet.

Figure 9 shows the various parts of teacher compensation included on the DataEntry worksheet in two separate sections: the Salary Data section and the Fringe Benefitand Education and Experience Data section.

5 See Appendix IV for school prototypes.

26

Figure 9: Teacher Compensation Parts on the Data Entry Worksheet

Figure 9 also illustrates how data within and between worksheets, particularlydata from the Data Entry worksheet, are inter-related. The arrows show where the valuein a cell affects other cells across the Spreadsheet. For example, the Teachers Base Salary(Data Entry worksheet, cell B53), affects the Benefits value (Data Entry worksheet,cell C53), Teachers Total Compensation (Data Entry worksheet, cell F53), and alsoaffects the value on the Teachers Salaries worksheet (Teachers Salaries worksheet, cellH11). The Teachers Base Salary value ($25,349.00) on the Teacher Salaries worksheetthen affects calculations throughout that worksheet to come up with each district’s TotalAllowance For Teacher Salaries Per ADM 1/2 K (column I, rows 42-89). These per-ADM district values for teacher salaries are then fed back into the Base Sheet worksheet(column I – Teacher Salaries, a.k.a. column 9).

27

Figure 10: Teacher Salaries Worksheet

Calculating Total Teacher Compensation Per ADM For Each DistrictTo calculate each district’s Total Allowance For Teacher Salaries Per ADM 1/2K,

several steps must be calculated. The experience adjustment for teachers is calculated onthe Teacher Salaries worksheet. The funding formula provides up to 20 step incrementsthat, like other components of the block grant, can be used by school districts in any waythey choose to deliver the “basket of educational services” specified by the Legislature.

Step 1: Calculate Total Beginning Teacher Compensation For Each DistrictTotal beginning teacher – teachers with no experience – compensation levels per

prototype ADM (1/2 K) are shown in cells M25-27 of the Teacher Salaries worksheet.Each district’s prototype generated teacher compensation is calculated in cells B42-89 bymultiplying the compensation per ADM figures for each prototype and each district’sADM for each prototype from the ADM By Grade worksheet. Because thesecompensation figures are for teachers with no experience, teacher salaries must beadjusted for actual experience.

The experience component is calculated for all non-Special Education FTEteachers on staff, not just those FTEs determined by the prototype. This includes certifiedstaff whose salaries may be paid by funds other than the General Fund. The experiencepremium is capped at a maximum payment of 20 experience steps.

28

Step 2: Calculate Total Allowed Experience Allocation For Each DistrictEvery district’s total years of allowed experience for teachers for SY01-02 are

found in cells C42-89 (referenced from cells B103-150).6 The experience adjustmentequals $773 for each year of experience – cell H14 (referenced from Data Entry cellB74) and shown in cells D42-89. Therefore, cells E42-89 calculate each district’s totalallowed experience allocation by multiplying the years of allowed experience and theexperience adjustment per year – cells C42-89 multiplied by cells D42-89.

Step 3: Calculate Total Fringe Payment For Prototype Teacher ExperienceCells F42-89 calculates the total number of teachers generated by each district

district’s ADM per prototype. Within the formulas in these cells is the calculation:Number of Prototype Teachers for each prototype level (cells E25-27) divided byprototype ADM for each prototype level (cells B25-27) to give you how many teachersper prototype ADM for each prototype. Multiplying these figures by each district’s ADMat each prototype level (again from the ADM By Grade worksheet) provides the numberof prototype-generated teachers for each district.

The fringe benefits rate (19 percent, cell H12) is then multiplied to the experienceadjustment per year ($773), the average years of experience for Wyoming teachers (12.44years, cell H17), and the number of prototype-generated teachers for each district (cellsF42-89 calculated above). These fringe benefits for prototype teacher experiencecalculations for each district are shown cells G42-G89.

Step 4: Calculate Total and Per-ADM Allowance For Teacher Compensation For EachDistrict

Cells H42-89 calculate the total allowance for teacher compensation for eachdistrict by summing the respective values in cells B42-89, E42-89, and G42-89.

Dividing each district’s total allowance for teacher compensation (cells H42-89)by each district’s total ADM (taken from the ADM By Grade worksheet) gives the totalteacher allowance for compensation per ADM for each district – results shown in cellsI42-89. These results are then reflected in the Base Sheet in column 9.

Data sources: WDE form 602

6 From WDE file “seniority_layout.xls” made available from Steve King.

29

SECTION 3F: ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES

The Supreme Court required that administrator salaries be adjusted forexperience, education and responsibility. The most easily obtainable and most reliablemeasure of experience is the number of years an administrator has held a particularposition. The best available measure of education is possession of a masters or doctoraldegree; and the best available measure of level of responsibility is the size of theenterprise managed measured by the number of students in the district for districtadministrators and number of students in the school for school level administrators.

The funding model for administrator salaries starts by funding each district basedon the average salary paid to an administrative category and then adjusts those averagesbased on the actual experience, education, and responsibility profile of the current set ofemployees. Based on a series of regressions for district-level administrators MAPestimated the value of each year of experience greater than the state mean to be $713.50,an MA was worth $4,353, and a doctorate was worth $9,167. Each additional ADM inthe district greater than the state average would be valued at $3.16 (version 3.2berroneously indicates the experience coefficient to be $159.50).

For school-level administrators, a year of experience greater than the state meanwould be valued at $498, an MA was worth $1,872, and a doctorate was valued at $2,767plus the MA premium. Each additional ADM above the state average would generateadditional compensation at a rate of $8.62 (version 3.2b erroneously bases the experienceadjustment on capped total experience where it should be based on total districtexperience).

All of these adjustments are made relative to the state mean. Thus those districtsand schools below the mean would generate a negative adjustment as indicated.

Data Source: Likely to be collected on WDE 602

The central and school administration cost adjustments inputted on the DataEntry worksheet (Figure 11) lead to cost calculations on the respective sheets.

30

Figure 11: Central and School Administration Cost Adjustments on Data EntryWorksheetNote: Cell C83 in this figure reads $159.50. This cell should read $713.50. This figurewas the official version of the Spreadsheet as of June 4, 2002 when this manual waswritten.

SECTION 3F-1: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION

Calculating District Per-ADM Central Administration FundingThe means and adjustment values found in the Cost Adjustments For Central

Administration (Coefficients) section of the Data Entry worksheet are used in theCentral Administration worksheet to first compute the administration salaryadjustments for experience, Masters Degree, doctorate degree, and enrollment for eachschool site in Wyoming.

Step 1: Determine Base Administration Cost AllowanceCells B40-B87 on the Central Administration worksheet calculate the Base

Central Office Administration Cost Allowance. This is calculated by multiplying the per-ADM allowance for central administration (cell J17), the percentage for salaries (cellJ13), and the percentage of central administration compensation that are non-clerical, andthe district’s ADM (from the ADM By Grade worksheet).

31

Cells C40-C87 are the districts’ Base Administration Cost Allowance adjusted forsalary increases from the 1997 report to the 2000-01 salary levels (calculated in cell J15).

Step 2: Determine Actual Experience, Degree Attainment, and School EnrollmentsThe average salaries for central administrators were calculated from all central

office-level administrator salaries, regardless of experience, enrollment size, possessionof an MA, or possession of a doctorate.

The average characteristics of Wyoming central-level administrators are shown incells F25-F28 of the Central Administration worksheet. The values in these cells,however, come from the Data Entry worksheet (cells B82-B85).

The actual experience (in the job, in the district), degree attainment, andenrollment size for each central office administrator were provided from the WyomingDepartment of Education and are listed by district starting in row 118 of the CentralAdministration worksheet. Because the average salary was calculated using all centraladministrators and their respective experience levels, degree levels, and schoolenrollments, adjustments must be made to the salary allocations to each district based onthe actual characteristics of their district administrators.

Step 3: Calculate Adjustments Based on Differences From the MeansGiven the average characteristics of central administrators and the actual

characteristics of individual central administrators, funding adjustments must be made toeach administrator’s salary to reflect the differences between the average and actualcharacteristics.

Cells G25-G28 of the Central Administration worksheet show the differentialadjustments that must be made to each administrator’s salary when generating fundingfor each district. That is, each year of experience is worth $713.50, a Masters Degree isworth $4,353.40, a doctorate is worth $9,167.40, and each student of enrollment is worth$3.16 in salary. These adjustment values come from the Data Entry worksheet cellsC82-C85.

Cells N118-Q323 show the calculated funding adjustments for experience,Masters Degree attainment, and doctorate attainment. As discussed, each administrator’saverage characteristics are subtracted from each administrator’s actual characteristics andeach difference is multiplied by the appropriate adjustment value. The sum of eachdistrict’s central administrators is calculated and used in the district total adjustments forthese characteristics. The district adjustments for enrollment, experience, Masters Degreeattainment, and doctorate attainment are made for each district in columns E-H, rows 40-87.

For example, a central administrator has a Masters Degree. In Wyoming, 63.0percent of central administrators have a Masters Degree. Therefore, this administratorwould generate an adjustment equal to the difference between her actual Masters Degreeattainment – equal to 100 percent – and the average administrator Masters Degree

32

attainment – 63.0 percent – multiplied by the Masters Degree salary adjustment of$4,353.40, or an adjustment of $1,610.76. Conversely, a district administrator without aMasters Degree would generate a funding adjustment of -$2,742.64.

Note: an administrator that possesses both a Masters Degree and a doctorate degreewould generate both funding adjustments for the district.

Step 4: Calculate Per-ADM Allocations for Central AdministrationCells I40-I87 calculate each district’s Total Allocations for Central

Administration by summing the Base Allowance Plus Adjustments for Salary Increases,the Adjustment for District Enrollment, the combined Adjustment for Experience, thecombined Adjustment for Masters, and the combined Adjustment for Doctorate.

The per-ADM central administration allocation for each district is calculated bydividing the Total Allocations for Central Administration by each district’s ADM (fromthe ADM By Grade worksheet). These district per-ADM values are fed back into theBase Sheet in column 10.

SECTION 3F-2: SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION

Calculating District Per-ADM School Administration FundingThe means and adjustment values found in the Cost Adjustments For School

Administration (Coefficients) section of the Data Entry worksheet are used in theSchool Admin worksheet to first compute the administration salary adjustments forexperience, Masters Degree, doctorate degree, and enrollment for each school site inWyoming. The individual site adjustment values are then summed into district-leveladministration adjustment values for their respective districts.

Step 1: Determine Base Site Administrator CompensationThe School Admin worksheet contains the average salaries for Wyoming vice

principals and principals, shown in cells E12 and F12, respectively (Figure 12). CellsL25-L27 show the Total Site Administrator Compensation per ADM for each of theprototypes. These per-ADM funding values are calculated using the principal and viceprincipal average compensation (average salaries, fringe benefits, and health insurance)multiplied by how many principals and vice principals exist in the prototypes – shown incells C25-D27. These prototype total site administrator compensation levels are thendivided by the prototype enrollments to determine the per-ADM values shown in L25-L27.

These per-ADM values for each prototype level are then multiplied by the ADMenrollments at each prototype level for each district – the Base School SiteAdministration Cost Allowance for each district are shown in B42-B89 on the SchoolAdmin worksheet.

Step 2: Determine Actual Experience, Degree Attainment, and School Enrollments

33

The average salaries for school administrators were calculated from all school-level administrator salaries, regardless of experience, enrollment size, possession of anMA, or possession of a doctorate.

The average characteristics of Wyoming school-level administrators are shown incells J11-J14 of the School Admin worksheet. The values in these cells, however, comefrom the Data Entry worksheet (cells C93-C96).

The actual experience (in the job, in the district), degree attainment, andenrollment size for each school administrator were provided from the WyomingDepartment of Education and are listed by school starting in row 118 of the SchoolAdmin worksheet. Because the average salary was calculated using all schooladministrators and their respective experience levels, degree levels, and schoolenrollments, adjustments must be made to the salary allocations to each district based onthe actual characteristics of their school administrators.

Step 3: Calculate Adjustments Based on Differences From the MeansGiven the average characteristics of school administrators and the actual

characteristics of individual school administrators, funding adjustments must be made toeach administrator’s salary to reflect the differences between the average and actualcharacteristics.

Cells K11-K14 of the School Administration worksheet (shown in Figure 9) showthe differential adjustments that must be made to each administrator’s salary whengenerating funding for each district. That is, each year of experience is worth $498.20, aMasters Degree is worth $1,872, a doctorate is worth $2,767.00, and each student ofenrollment is worth $8.62 in salary. These adjustment values come from the Data Entryworksheet cells D93-D96.

Cells 0119-S527 show the calculated funding adjustments for experience, MastersDegree attainment, doctorate attainment, and school size. As discussed, eachadministrator’s average characteristics are subtracted from each administrator’s actualcharacteristics and each difference is multiplied by the appropriate adjustment value. Thesum of each district’s school administrators is made to the district’s school administrationfunding allocation calculations shown in cells C42-G89 of the School Admin worksheet.

For example, a school administrator has a Masters Degree. In Wyoming, 95.5percent of school administrators have a Masters Degree. Therefore, this administratorwould generate an adjustment equal to the difference between her actual Masters Degreeattainment – equal to 100 percent – and the average administrator Masters Degreeattainment – 95.5 percent – multiplied by the Masters Degree salary adjustment of$1,872, or an adjustment of $84.24. Conversely, a school administrator without a MastersDegree would generate a funding adjustment of -$1,787.76.

Note: an administrator who possesses both a Masters Degree and a doctorate degreewould generate both salary adjustments for the district.

34

Step 4: Calculate Per-ADM Allocations for School AdministrationCells H42-H89 calculate each district’s cost allowance for school site

administration by summing the Base School Site Administration Allowance, theAdjustment for School Size, the combined Experience Adjustment, the combined MAAdjustment, and the combined Doctorate Adjustment.

The per-ADM school administration allocation for each district is calculated bydividing the cost allowance for school site administration by each district’s ADM (fromthe ADM By Grade worksheet). These district per-ADM values are fed back into theBase Sheet in column 11.

35

Figu

re 1

2: S

choo

l Adm

inis

trat

ion

Adj

ustm

ents

36

SECTION 3G: CLASSIFIED SALARIES

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and ruled that classifiedsalaries”…should be adjusted in a fashion similar to teacher salaries to account fordifferences in experience, responsibility, and seniority.”

Absent a state prescription of the number and class of non-certified employees adistrict can hire, MAP recommended a procedure based on average salaries that can beadjusted over time to reflect changes in average experience levels. They proposed the useof job classification as a proxy for level of responsibility. The proposed adjustment wouldcompensate for real changes in costs resulting from changes in experience. Thisadjustment will require that districts report years of experience for each year beginningwith 2000-01 as the base year.

Based on an analysis of Wyoming wage data, the annual rate of return forexperience is 1.2 percent. However, consistent with the block grant, as with certifiedemployees, school districts are free to provide rewards for experience in ways of theirchoosing.

SECTION 3G-1: CENTRAL CLASSIFIED STAFF

At the present time, due to lack of data, central office classified personnel areincluded in the portion of the prototypes that is adjusted by the WCLI in the Base Sheet.When data on these personnel experience and responsibility are available, furtheradjustments will be possible.

Column 12 of the Base Sheet is currently blank to reflect the lack of data and theassociated worksheet, Central Classified, serves as a placeholder for future data andinformation for adjustments.

SECTION 3G-2: SCHOOL CLASSIFIED STAFF

Figure 13 shows the School Classified worksheet. Cells F18 and G18 show theaverage salaries for Instructional Aides and Clerks and Data Entry personnel,respectively. These values come from the Data Entry worksheet. As shown in theSchool Classified worksheet, a note specifies that the average salaries were derived bytaking the 2000-01 average salaries and multiplied by the 2001 2nd quarter WCLI (fromthe WCLI worksheet).

With these values, total classified funding amounts are calculated for each grade-level prototype, cells K31-K33 (average compensation multiplied by number of classifiedstaff). A school classified staff per-ADM funding level is derived for each prototype bydividing the total by the respective prototype enrollment sizes – per-ADM funding levelsare shown in cells L31-L33.

37

Every district’s Total School Level Classified Salary Allocation is calculated inCells B52-B99 by multiplying each prototype level’s per-ADM funding amount by eachdistrict’s prototype-level enrollment and adding them together. From this total, everydistrict’s per-ADM funding amount is calculated by dividing the total amount by eachdistrict’s K-12 1/2 K ADM. These values are then fed back into the Base Sheet for totaldistrict funding calculations.

Figure 13: School Classified Salary WorksheetData Source: WDE 603Rows 36-44 were hidden to show the relevant elements of the worksheet. These rows were blank on theworksheet.

38

SECTION 3H: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

The Supreme Court held that the costs of routine maintenance and operation(M&O), including utility cost, must be determined by either:

1) A formula that uses enrollment measured by ADM, building square footage,and number of buildings in the district; or

2) Full reimbursement of actual costs, subject to state oversight.

The Legislature enacted the following:

• For schools operating between 100 percent and 125 percent of the state squarefootage construction standards (i.e., under-utilized space), fund maintenance andoperations at $2.44 per square foot.

• For schools operating between 125 percent and 200 percent of the state squarefootage construction standards, fund all square footage above the standards at adiminishing amount per square foot.

• Provide no funding for space greater than 200 percent of the state square footageconstruction standards.

• For schools operating at less than 100 percent of the state square footage constructionstandards (i.e., over utilized space), fund at an increasing amount per square foot.

• Fund the full formula allowance ($2.44 per square foot) for non-instructional facilitiesthat are equal to 10 percent of actual education space or 10 percent of the statestandard of instructional space, which ever is greater. Fund at increasing rates formore intensive space utilization and decreasing rates for less intensive utilization.

The Operations and Maintenance worksheet incorporates all of theserecommendations and calculates the total M&O allocation per ADM.

Step 1: Determine Standard Education Space for DistrictColumns 2-5 of the Operations and Maintenance worksheet show the gross

square footage (GSF) for educational, portable, office, and warehouse space. Column 6calculates the Total GSF for each district.

Columns 7-9 calculate the Standard Education Space for each district according tograde level. Multiplying the elementary, middle, and high school ADMs for each districtand the State Adopted Square Foot Allowance for each level gives the StandardEducation Space for each level. The State Adopted Square Foot Allowances are shown incells F11-F13.

39

Column 10 is the sum of the three levels providing each district’s Total StandardEducation Space for District.

Step 2: Determine District Education Capacity as a Percent of the State StandardColumn 14 calculates each district’s education capacity by adding column 2

(Educational GSF) and column 3 (Total Portable).

Column 16 calculates the district education capacity as a percent of the state standard foreducational space by dividing column 14 by column 10.

Step 3: Determine Allowance Based on District Percentage of State Standard forEducation Space

Columns 19 and columns 22-23 calculate the allowance for each district’seducation space according to its percentage of the state standard for educational space.Column 19 calculates the allowance for a district if its total educational space wasbetween 100 and 125 percent of the state standard.

Column 21 calculates the per-foot allowance when education space exceeds 125percent of the state standard. This per-foot allowance is capped at 200 percent of the statestandard.

Column 22 calculates the allowance for educational space up to 125 percent of thestate standard at $2.44 per square foot.

Column 23 calculates the allowance for educational space over 125 percent of thestate standard by multiplying the per-foot allowance in Column 21 and the remainingsquare footage above 125 percent.

Column 24 is the Total Education Space Allowance for each district. This iscalculated by summing columns 17, 19, 22, and 23. Column 17 is the district allowance ifeducational space is overused.

Step 4: Determine Allowance for Non-Educational SpaceColumns 25-34 calculate the allowance for non-educational space for each

district. Column 25 calculates the district’s percentage of non-educational space to thestate standard by adding column 4 (Office GSF) and column 5 (Warehouse GSF) anddividing the sum by column 10. Column 26 calculates the district’s percentage of non-educational space to the district’s educational space by adding columns 4 and 5 anddividing the sum by column 14.

Column 27 calculates the allowance if the district’s non-educational space is lessthan 10 percent of the state standard for educational space at $2.44 per square foot.Column 28 calculates the allowance if the district’s non-educational space exceeds 10percent of the state standard, but is less than 10 percent of its total education space. Thatis, if column 27 exceeds 10 percent, but column 28 is less than 10 percent, then column28 generates an allowance of $2.44 per square foot of non-education space.

40

If district non-education space exceeds 10 percent of both the state standard andits education space, then the allowable non-education space is capped at 20 percent(shown in column 30). If a district exceeds the 10 percent threshold for both, then the$2.44 per square foot allowance is applied to the first 10 percent of non-education space –calculated in column 32. Column 33 calculates the allowance per square foot after thefirst 10 percent for each district. Column 34 is the allowance the remaining non-educationspace above 10 percent but capped at 20 percent by multiplying the remaining squarefootage by the allowance per square foot calculated in column 33.

Column 35 is the Total Allocation for Non-Educational Space.

Step 5: Determine Total Maintenance and Operations Allocation Per ADMColumn 36 calculates the Total Maintenance Allocation by adding column 24

(Total Education Space Maintenance Allowance) and column 35 (Total Allocation forNon-Educational Space).

Column 37 is the Total Maintenance per ADM. This is calculated by dividingcolumn 36 by the district’s ADM taken from the ADM By Grade worksheet. The TotalMaintenance per ADM value for each district is shown in column 14 of the Base Sheet.

SECTION 3I: SPECIAL EDUCATION AND TRANSPORTATION

Costs for Special Education and Transportation are currently 100 percentreimbursable by the state. That policy is continued. The Special Education worksheetand Transportation worksheet show the total and per-ADM reimbursements made toeach district, respectively. The per-ADM values for both Special Education andTransportation are included in the Base Sheet (columns 20 and 21, respectively) and area part of each district’s Total Resources per ADM calculations. The amounts shown foreach district are claimed reimbursement amounts for fiscal year 2001. Fiscal year 2002amounts have not yet been claimed.

SECTION 3J: REGIONAL COST ADJUSTMENT

The Court held that, “statewide average salaries must be adjusted for the full cost-of-living differences using the entire WCLI or another reasonable formula which includesa full housing component, including the rental of shelter costs, and a medical componentto cover costs not included in the benefits portion of the salary component.”

The effect of meeting the Court’s directive is that most districts will now havenegative (or larger negative) adjustments compared to those experienced in the priormodel. In the previous formula, the index was based on an average of costs in Laramieand Albany counties. MAP proposed that the base be changed to the statewide average

41

cost. The effect of changing the base increases funding to all districts and cuts thestatewide loss of funding in half.

The WCLI worksheet shows the comparative cost-of-living adjustment for eachcounty (cells B38-B60) – Figure 14.

Figure 14: Comparative Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Each County

The adjustments for each county are based on the average of the last six periodsper LSO – shown in the comment on the worksheet. These figures are then put back intothe Base Sheet (column 17 – Regional Cost Index) and used in per-ADM totalcalculations for each district.

SECTION 3K: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

The Wyoming Supreme Court held that, “… in order to provide vocational andtechnical training, the actual costs of providing vocational teachers and equipment mustbe examined, included as a line item in the MAP model, and funded accordingly.”

The Legislature enacted the following:

42

• Conduct a comprehensive study of vocational education costs to determine howvocational ADM should be weighted and which courses qualify for vocationalfunding.

• Develop program standards for state approved vocational programs.

• Ultimately, fund state approved vocational classes with a weighted-ADM formula.

• Introduce a transitional categorical funding program for purchase of qualifyingvocational equipment until a cost based vocational student weight is developed.

Column 19 on the Base Sheet allows for data to be inputted, but is currently blankbecause of an absence of data. There is not an associated worksheet to match with thiscolumn.

43

APPENDIX I: RECOMMENDED READINGS

Ehlers, John, Gerald C. Hayward, and Lawrence O. Picus (January 17, 2002). WyomingEducation Finance: Small District Report.

Guthrie, James W. et al. (May 27, 1997). A Proposed Cost Based Block Grant Model forWyoming School Finance.

Guthrie, James W. (May 21, 2001). Wyoming Education Policy Alternatives: Complyingwith the Recent Campbell Decision.

Hayward, Gerald C. (January 15, 2002). Wyoming Education Finance: Modifying theMaintenance and Operations Adjustment to Comply with the Ruling of theWyoming Supreme Court.

Klein, Steven, Rosio Bugarin, and Gary Hoachlander (January 8, 2002). WyomingEducation Finance: What Does It Cost? An Analysis of Annual StatewideExpenditures for Vocational Education in Wyoming.

MGT of America, Inc. (October 1999). Routine Maintenance Funding Formula for Stateof Wyoming Public Schools.

Picus, Lawrence O., Gerald C. Hayward, and John Ehlers (January 31, 2002). WyomingEducation Finance: Small Schools Report.

Seder, Richard C., Lawrence O. Picus, and James R. Smith (January 4, 2002). WyomingEducation Finance: Estimating the Costs of Services for “At-Risk” Students.

Smith, James R. (January 31, 2002). Wyoming Education Finance: Proposed Revisions tothe Cost Based Block Grant.

Smith, James R. and Gerald C. Hayward (July 2, 2001). Wyoming Education Finance:Implementation Issues.

Wolkoff, Michael J. (January 31, 2002). Wyoming Education Finance: Regional PriceAdjustment.

Wolkoff, Michael J. and Michael Podgursky (January 31, 2002). Wyoming EducationFinance: Wyoming School District Employee Compensation.

44

APPENDIX II: DEFINITION OF “THE BASKET”

The Basket of Outcomes and Subject Matter Courses for a Proper Education

COMMON CORE OF KNOWLEDGEReading/Language Arts*Social studiesMathematics*ScienceFine arts and performing artsPhysical educationHealth and safetyHumanitiesCareer/vocational educationForeign cultures and languagesApplied technologyGovernment and Civics

(including state and federal constitution)

* for grades 1 through 8 reading, writing, and mathematics shall be emphasized

COMMON CORE OF SKILLSProblem solvingInterpersonal communicationsKeyboarding and computer applicationsCritical thinkingCreativityLife skills, including personal financial management

SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTSStudents with disabilitiesGifted and talented students

REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADUATION FROM HIGH SCHOOL AND/OR HIGHSCHOOL DIPLOMA

Four years of EnglishThree school years of MathematicsThree school years of ScienceThree school years of Social Studies

(including history, American government and economic systems andinstitutions)

Mastery of the common core of knowledge and skills

45

APPENDIX III: TOOLBAR ACTIVATION

One way to observe the interconnectivity of data within the Spreadsheet is to utilize theAuditing Toolbar within Microsoft Excel. The Auditing Toolbar allows the user to:

• Check Precedents – show what other cells within the Spreadsheet affect the valuein a given cell by showing arrows from those cells to the cell in question

• Check Dependents – show what other cells within the Spreadsheet are affected bythe value in a given cell by showing arrows from the cell in question to those cellsaffected

Here are the instructions to activate the Auditing Toolbar within Microsoft Excel. OnceMicrosoft Excel and the Spreadsheet are open:

1. Click on View along the top menu bar of the Spreadsheet2. Choose Toolbars within the drop down menu3. Choose Customize from the toolbar options4. Choose Auditing5. Click on OK

The Auditing Toolbar will appear on the Spreadsheet for use.

When checking either Precedents or Dependents, an arrow will point a small worksheeticon indicating that the cell in question affects or is affected by a cell in one or moreworksheets. To check what other worksheets are in question when this occurs, use yourcursor and point it towards the icon or the line leading to the icon. When your cursorbecomes an arrow, double click your mouse and a dialogue box will appear showing theworksheet and cells in question.

46

APPENDIX IV: USING THE SPREADSHEET FOR PLANNING

The spreadsheet is designed to operate as much more than a simple calculation ofthe various funding components. Think of it as a dynamic model that can be used in avariety of ways, for a variety of purposes, including:

Districts – enter data unique to a district- like ADM, teacher seniority, Special Educationand Transportation reimbursements, Small School ADMs, etc., and generate veryaccurate funding levels for budgeting purposes;

State – WDE and LSO can enter statewide values similar to what a district can enter, andgenerate projected funding Guarantee levels for future years;

Modeling – enter changes or estimates for External Cost Adjustments (ECA), WCLIimpacts for recalibration, RCOL updates, teacher base salary changes, health insurancecost changes, administrative and classified compensation changes, etc., to measure effectsof proposed changes to current law.

All of the foregoing operations and more are possible for simulation purposes.Many desired changes can take place on the Data Entry worksheet. The Data Entryworksheet provides the ability to simulate hypothetical parameter settings to examine anychanges to funding, but no changes to the parameters on the Data Entry worksheet areofficial unless legislated. If any Spreadsheet parameters are changed within the DataEntry worksheet, calculated funding levels would likely change throughout theSpreadsheet; those changes would ultimately be reflected on the Base Sheet.

For example, the user can choose which ADM count to use in all per-ADMcalculations throughout the Spreadsheet. There are four choices available to users shownin the example:

• Three-year rolling average of school years 2000-01, 1999-00, and 1998-99;• One-year ADM from school year 2000-01;• Three-year rolling average using the 60-day count from school year 2001-02, and

the actual ADM from 2000-01 and 1999-00; or• 60-day ADM from school year 2001-02.

47

APPENDIX V: PROTOTYPES

WYOMING PROTOTYPICAL MODELELEMENTARY SCHOOL: K-5; 288 STUDENTS; CLASS SIZE 16

Description UnitsSalaryCost

Mand.Benefits

HealthBenefits

TotalCost

A. Personnel 1. Teachers 17.5 $31,758 $6,034 $3,641 $725,078 2. Substitute Teachers (5%) 0.9 $10,500 $803 $9,890 3. Aides (FTE) 2.0 $10,080 $1,915 $23,990 4. Pupil Support 1.0 $31,758 $6,034 $3,641 $41,433 5. Library/Media Certificated Librarian Media Assistant Technician

1.0 $31,758 $6,034 $3,641 $41,433

6. School Administration 1.0 $50,877 $9,667 $3,641 $64,185 7. Clerical/Data Entry 2.0 $16,000 $3,040 $3,641 $45,362 8. Operations 2.5 $20,000 $3,800 $3,641 $68,603

Description CostB. Supplies and Instructional Materials $60,122C. Equipment $38,134D. Food ServiceE. Categorical Aid 1. Special Education $150,680 2. Limited English Speaking (see spread sheet) 3. Disadvantaged Youth (see spread sheet) 4. Gifted $2,376F. Student Activities $3,677G. Professional Development $24,288H. Assessment $6,600I. District Expenditure 1. Maintenance and Operations $94,103 2. Administration and miscellaneous expenditures $146,257 3. Transportation $87,286

Full K ADM 288 Total Cost $1,633,496 By Law:1/2 K ADM 264 Adjusted $/ADM 6,187.00

48

WYOMING PROTOTYPICAL MODELMIDDLE/JR. HIGH 6-8; 300 STUDENTS; CLASS SIZE 21

Description UnitsSalaryCost

Mand.Benefits

HealthBenefits

TotalCost

A. Personnel 1. Teachers 17.7 $31,758 $6,034 $3,641 $731,983 2. Substitute Teachers (5%) 0.9 $10,500 $803 $9,985 3. Aides (FTE) 2.0 $10,080 $1,915 $23,990 4. Pupil Support 2.0 $31,758 $6,034 $3,641 $82,866 5. Library/Media Certificated Librarian Media Assistant Technician

1.01.5

$31,758$18,000

$6,034$3,420

$3,641$3,641

$41,433$37,592

6. School Administration 1.0 $50,792 $9,650 $3,641 $64,083 7. Clerical/Data Entry 2.0 $16,000 $3,040 $3,641 $45,362 8. Operations 3.0 $20,000 $3,800 $3,641 $82,323

Description CostB. Supplies and Instructional Materials $64,358C. Equipment $45,057D. Food ServiceE. Categorical Aid 1. Special Education $171,227 2. Limited English Speaking (see spread sheet) 3. Disadvantaged Youth (see spread sheet) 4. Gifted $2,700F. Student Activities $27,225G. Professional Development $27,600H. Assessment $7,500I. District Expenditure 1. Maintenance and Operations $121,623 2. Administration and miscellaneous expenditures $166,201 3. Transportation $99,188

300 Total Cost $1,852,295 By Law:Adjusted $/ADM 6,174.00

49

WYOMING PROTOTYPICAL MODELHIGH SCHOOL: 9-12; 600 STUDENTS; CLASS SIZE 21

Description UnitsSalaryCost

Mand.Benefits

HealthBenefits Total Cost

A. Personnel 1. Teachers 33.3 $31,758 $6,034 $3,641 $1,381,101 2. Substitute Teachers (5%) 1.7 $12,250 $937 $21,979 3. Aides (FTE) 5.0 $10,080 $1,915 $59,976 4. Pupil Support 4.0 $31,758 $6,034 $3,641 $165,732 5. Library/Media Certificated Librarian Media Assistant Technician

1.02.0

$31,758$18,000

$6,034$3,420

$3,641$3,641

$41,433$50,122

6. School Administration 1.01.0

$53,071$47,675

$10,083$9,058

$3,641$3,641

$66,795$60,374

7. Clerical/Data Entry 5.0 $16,000 $3,040 $3,641 $113,405 8. Operations 5.0 $20,000 $3,800 $3,641 $137,205

Description CostB. Supplies and Instructional Materials $162,448C. Equipment $104,930D. Food ServiceE. Categorical Aid 1. Special Education $342,454 2. Limited English Speaking (see spread sheet) 3. Disadvantaged Youth (see spread sheet) 4. Gifted $5,400F. Student Activities $164,863G. Professional Development $60,000H. Assessment $15,000I. District Expenditure 1. Maintenance and Operations $359,185 2. Administration and miscellaneous expenditures $332,401 3. Transportation $198,376

600 Total Cost $3,843,180 By Law:Adjusted $/ADM 6,405.00