Some Questions Answered By Gary Gilbert

This note is to answer some questions that were sent to me this week. The bill that the House Education Committee reported out on Friday and now sits in the House Ways and Means contained two areas that result in some sort of penalty for districts that are high spending. The first is in regard to total spending by a school district. The second is one of the provisions dealing with special education expenditures.

Districts that spend more than 123% above the state average per pupil costs are subjected to a penalty. This is change from 125% and is an attempt to control spending. Along with this is a change in the weight given to secondary vs elementary pupils. While this has not impact on Fairfax or Georgia it will have an impact state wide. Union school districts will be required to separate elementary costs from the high school that serves the elementary districts. This will show voters were their dollars are being spent, but may drive more elementary school districts into the excess spending penalty. A change in the weighting would more accurately reflect the difference in education cost for secondary and elementary schools but would not necessarily affect the melded tax rate that is paid in union school districts. Neither change affects Georgia or Fairfax school tax rates. The estimated savings state wide is about 4.1 million dollars in penalties.
The second is to establish a process by for the DOE to look at low spending and high spending special ed. Districts and to work with the high spending districts. If the district is already doing all it can to meet the needs of its students in a cost effective manner and is still a high spending district no further action is taken. If the district in not providing the needed services in a cost effective and efficient manner the commission will develop an plan for the district that will help them meet that goal. The entire idea here is to give districts the support necessary to provide the services needed and to use the practices that are the most cost effective to reduce costs so the district does not become subject to a withholding penalty. It is estimated that this review will save $5.4--6.7 million.