From: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Barnes, Ben Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:47 PM Mahoney, Brian;Pryor, Stefan Goldfarb, Adam;Kowalski, Karen;Guay, Kathleen;Grenier, Leah;Noonan, John G. RE: ECS ECS Shell with option c.xlsx Brian, Thanks. This is thoughtful, and has advanced my thinking quite considerably. I appreciate your work very much. In looking at the scenarios, I would make the following observations: 1. I suppose I prefer Option A, but they seem very similar. My preference is based on what I detect to be a stronger bias toward inner ring suburbs and small cities, which is a group I think has suffered in the past. I need to look more carefully, though since they are very close. 2. I am untroubled by the losers, and believe that we should not undertake heroic efforts for that group. That said, the decision to hold harmless is ultimately a tactical political call and I think it is wise to have both options available, particularly under this scenario where the distributional impacts are modest. 3. Only $68 million of the new $100 m goes to Reform Communities. I would like to do more — say 80-90 percent. 4. How about lowering the GWL. Under this scenario we cut minimum aid by about a quarter (.09*9687=872 per pupil compared to .05*12,000=600) what about 0%, or -5%? Must we really send millions to Greenwich and New Canaan? Look at option C attached. A GWL of -5% pushed the share of new money in reform communities up to 74%. And the losers become bigger losers. I offer this for consideration, not because I'm sold on it. 5. What is the long-term prognosis for this? I like the way that the numbers come out, but I worry that it is too complex to explain, and that there is a divorce between the formula factors and the grant amounts. If a town gains enrollment or loses it, the grant will hardly change because it is based on the 11-12 aid as a base. Are we comfortable with that and can we sell it as reform? Is there a way to gradually shift over to the target? Thanks again. I'll keep mulling it over. Ben Benjamin Barnes Secretary Office of Policy and Management ben.barnes@ct.gov 860.418.6500 From: Mahoney, Brian Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:25 PM To: Pryor, Stefan; Barnes, Ben Cc: Goldfarb, Adam; Kowalski, Karen; Guay, Kathleen; Grenier, Leah; Noonan, John G. Subject: FW: ECS Hi Stefan, Attached is information concerning the Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant. In summary, we have run two options (each with two sub-options — with and without losers). All options provide for $100 million new dollars. In developing these options, given the ECS formula has not really been engaged since 2007-08 and there has been no recognition of demographic changes, particularly in the reduction of resident students in many of our neediest districts, computing a new fully funded formula amount (target aid) and then phasing down to the $100 million new dollars does not work. DRG I towns would suffer significant reductions. Instead, we built on the 2011-12 entitlements ($1.889 billion) and distributed the new funds through a series of formula changes: Option A: (1) Foundation increases to $12,000; Option B: (1) Foundation increases to $12,000; PLAINTIFFS' TRIAL EXHIBIT No X07 H1-1D-CV14-5037555-S 1 of 2 241 OPM0000704 (2) Minimum Aid Ratio is reduced to 5%; (2) Minimum Aid Ratio is reduced (3) Eliminate PCI and use updated MHI (3) Eliminate PCI and use updated (4) For student weighting: (a) add bilingual (4) For student weighting: (a) add to 5%; MHI; bilingual Students to the LEP counts and (b) replace Title I Poverty with free and eligibility. reduced eligibility. Students to the LEP counts and (b) replace Title I Poverty with Husky A Under all four scenarios, $40 to $45.5 million of new funds accrue to the 7 towns under DRG land nearly $80 million is concentrated in DRGs G,H and I. In addition, the new funds that accrue to the 29 tentative reform communities range from $67 to$73 million. Also attached is a preliminary listing of the 29 reform communities that would be subject to conditional funding of the new ECS aid. The 29 towns reflect: (1) the lowest 30 performing towns on the Spring 2011 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) AND the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT); OR (2) they are one of our 18 current Accountability partner towns pursuant to 10-223e in that they are in at least their third year of district wide in need of improvement. In addition, we have also provided the 2011-12 entitlements for the Priority School District, Extended School Building Hours and Summer School/Accountability grants which in total equal approximately $46.8 million. These funds have not been factored into the simulations but are available for consideration about possible repurposing. The summary of the options are in the ECS shell under work tab "Option Summaries" 2 of 2 OPM0000705