ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJAKALAMANAOAPAQARASATAUAVAWAXAYAZBABBBCBDBEBFBGBHBIBJBKBLBMBNBOBPBQBRBSBTBUBVBWBXBYBZCACBCCCDCECFCGCHCICJCKCLCMCNCOCPCQCRCSCTCUCV
1
Respondent #Submit dateQ3.A1Q4.A1Q7.A1.C1Q7.A1.C2Q7.A1.C3Q7.A1.C4Q7.A1.C5Q7.A2.C1Q7.A2.C2Q7.A2.C3Q7.A2.C4Q7.A2.C5Q7.A3.C1Q7.A3.C2Q7.A3.C3Q7.A3.C4Q7.A3.C5Q7.A4.C1Q7.A4.C2Q7.A4.C3Q7.A4.C4Q7.A4.C5Q7.A5.C1Q7.A5.C2Q7.A5.C3Q7.A5.C4Q7.A5.C5Q7.A6.C1Q7.A6.C2Q7.A6.C3Q7.A6.C4Q7.A6.C5Q7.A7.C1Q7.A7.C2Q7.A7.C3Q7.A7.C4Q7.A7.C5Q7.A8.C1Q7.A8.C2Q7.A8.C3Q7.A8.C4Q7.A8.C5Q7.A9.C1Q7.A9.C2Q7.A9.C3Q7.A9.C4Q7.A9.C5Q10.A1.C1Q10.A1.C2Q10.A1.C3Q10.A1.C4Q10.A1.C5Q10.A1.C6Q10.A2.C1Q10.A2.C2Q10.A2.C3Q10.A2.C4Q10.A2.C5Q10.A2.C6Q10.A3.C1Q10.A3.C2Q10.A3.C3Q10.A3.C4Q10.A3.C5Q10.A3.C6Q10.A4.C1Q10.A4.C2Q10.A4.C3Q10.A4.C4Q10.A4.C5Q10.A4.C6Q10.A5.C1Q10.A5.C2Q10.A5.C3Q10.A5.C4Q10.A5.C5Q10.A5.C6Q10.A6.C1Q10.A6.C2Q10.A6.C3Q10.A6.C4Q10.A6.C5Q10.A6.C6Q10.A7.C1Q10.A7.C2Q10.A7.C3Q10.A7.C4Q10.A7.C5Q10.A7.C6Q10.A8.C1Q10.A8.C2Q10.A8.C3Q10.A8.C4Q10.A8.C5Q10.A8.C6Q10.A9.C1Q10.A9.C2Q10.A9.C3
2
Based on the readings below, do you have additional questions on how Colorado provides resources to districts based on additional student learning needs?Is there any part of the current funding system into which you would like to dive deeper during the next task force meeting?After reviewing the resources below, what student characteristics should be kept the same, should be added, modified, or removed in Colorado’s school funding system? Please use the following list to indicate how each characteristic should be addressed:After reviewing the provided resources below, how should the characteristics from Topic 2 that you identified be funded in the school funding system? Should Colorado utilize formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts), resource-based funding, reimbursement, categorical funding, or a combination? Please detail a mechanism for each student characteristic if applicable.
3
321205371331200114117140819062643871211016100113101115112112112115132410107262033110000100
4
At-Risk Students - Keep the sameAt-Risk Students - AddAt-Risk Students - ModifyAt-Risk Students - RemoveAt-Risk Students - Please add any additional notes or feedbackConcentrations of At-Risk Students - Keep the sameConcentrations of At-Risk Students - AddConcentrations of At-Risk Students - ModifyConcentrations of At-Risk Students - RemoveConcentrations of At-Risk Students - Please add any additional notes or feedbackEnglish Language Learners - Keep the sameEnglish Language Learners - AddEnglish Language Learners - ModifyEnglish Language Learners - RemoveEnglish Language Learners - Please add any additional notes or feedbackConcentrations of English Language Learners - Keep the sameConcentrations of English Language Learners - AddConcentrations of English Language Learners - ModifyConcentrations of English Language Learners - RemoveConcentrations of English Language Learners - Please add any additional notes or feedbackStudents with Disabilities - Keep the sameStudents with Disabilities - AddStudents with Disabilities - ModifyStudents with Disabilities - RemoveStudents with Disabilities - Please add any additional notes or feedbackGifted and Talented - Keep the sameGifted and Talented - AddGifted and Talented - ModifyGifted and Talented - RemoveGifted and Talented - Please add any additional notes or feedbackStudents in Specific Grade Levels - Keep the sameStudents in Specific Grade Levels - AddStudents in Specific Grade Levels - ModifyStudents in Specific Grade Levels - RemoveStudents in Specific Grade Levels - Please add any additional notes or feedbackLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Keep the sameLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - AddLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - ModifyLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - RemoveLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Please add any additional notes or feedbackOther - Keep the sameOther - AddOther - ModifyOther - RemoveOther - Please add any additional notes or feedbackAt-Risk Students - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)At-Risk Students - Resource-based fundingAt-Risk Students - ReimbursementAt-Risk Students - Categorical fundingAt-Risk Students - CombinationAt-Risk Students - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackConcentrations of At-Risk Students - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)Concentrations of At-Risk Students - Resource-based fundingConcentrations of At-Risk Students - ReimbursementConcentrations of At-Risk Students - Categorical fundingConcentrations of At-Risk Students - CombinationConcentrations of At-Risk Students - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackEnglish Language Learners - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)English Language Learners - Resource-based fundingEnglish Language Learners - ReimbursementEnglish Language Learners - Categorical fundingEnglish Language Learners - CombinationEnglish Language Learners - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackConcentrations of English Language Learners - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)Concentrations of English Language Learners - Resource-based fundingConcentrations of English Language Learners - ReimbursementConcentrations of English Language Learners - Categorical fundingConcentrations of English Language Learners - CombinationConcentrations of English Language Learners - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackStudents with Disabilities - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)Students with Disabilities - Resource-based fundingStudents with Disabilities - ReimbursementStudents with Disabilities - Categorical fundingStudents with Disabilities - CombinationStudents with Disabilities - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackGifted and Talented - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)Gifted and Talented - Resource-based fundingGifted and Talented - ReimbursementGifted and Talented - Categorical fundingGifted and Talented - CombinationGifted and Talented - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackStudents in Specific Grade Levels - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)Students in Specific Grade Levels - Resource-based fundingStudents in Specific Grade Levels - ReimbursementStudents in Specific Grade Levels - Categorical fundingStudents in Specific Grade Levels - CombinationStudents in Specific Grade Levels - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)Low Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Resource-based fundingLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - ReimbursementLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Categorical fundingLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - CombinationLow Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Please provide any additional notes or feedbackOther - Formula funding (student weights or flat per-pupil amounts)Other - Resource-based fundingOther - Reimbursement
5
12023-09-261000Not interested in rearranging deck chairs1000Not interested in rearranging deck chairs1000Not interested in rearranging deck chairs0100Not interested in rearranging deck chairs0010Not interested in rearranging deck chairs0000Not interested in rearranging deck chairs0100Not interested in rearranging deck chairs; How to deal with PreK? Should it be back in the formula?0100Not interested in rearranging deck chairs; How does this interact with At Risk Concentration?1000Not interested in rearranging deck chairs; Cost of living and size factors aren't included here because it's not a student factor, but they all interact10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing10000Without an adequacy study, answering this question doesn't make sense to me; we're essentially just guessing000
6
22023-09-26100010001000010000101000010001001000Cost of Living1000010000100001000010000100001000010000100
7
32023-09-26Does the biannual cost of living study result in a change to cost of living factors based on the study's results? I would still like to see a sheet showing the last 20 years of cost of living factors used in the formula alongside the cost of living factors determined in the legislative council's biannual studies. Please.0010Fund inside the formula with broad inclusion of all students who qualify for free or reduced; new at-risk metrics are interesting and certainly need further analysis once the census method has data to consider0100I'm not sure I understand this measure and need clarification.0010Fund inside the formula, except have categorical funding for high need ELL (non-English proficient)0100Same - I need more information about this measure.0010Fund inside the formula except for high-cost special education kids which should be funded as a categorical.0010Fund inside the formula.1000I'm not familiar with data supporting this concept as a pressing or important change or addition to how schools are funded. Curious to learn more. I can see greater base funding for early childhood grades (PK-2)0010Currently the same as at-risk; unless we work to identify at-risk with measures other than income or proxies for income, then I don't see adding this factor. If at-risk came to have a different definition (other characteristics only, like foster care, migrant, low education of parents, child in abusive home, etc, then a separate poverty measure could be included, inside the formula.00001000010000additional funds in formula for concentrations of at-risk students10011see previous notes10000same as at-risk concentrations10011see previous notes100000000010000000
8
42023-09-26How were all of the weighting factors initially determined? 12% + 0.3% or 0.36% for every percent above state average seems very precise, but without an adequacy study I don't have a lot of confidence that is a good anchor point for our conversations.00100010001000100010Is the additional SWD state funding within scope?00101000001000000100001000010000100010000100001000010000000
9
52023-09-27Are there statutory, constitutional, or historical reasons why student-centered factors like At-Risk, ELL, and Special Education have been funded so lowly? Why is Special Education only addressed in Categorical funding and not in the formula? Why is ELL funding both in the Formula and Categoricals? How do these two separate ELL funding streams interact with each other?I would like to dive deeper into the "order of operations" within our current formula. The School Finance Simulator tool is very helpful, and it demonstrates how multiplicative factors like Cost-of-Living have impacts on the other factors in the formula. That initial step of COL in the math problem changes the rest of the steps in the equation, including funding for At-Risk and ELL students.0010Modifications/increases need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to students living in poverty. A weight of 12% is dismally low and not in line with the research that says that the weight should be at least 10 times that amount. A different task force has made recommendations and work is already underway to modify how At-Risk Students are measured for our school finance formula. That new measure will include socioeconomic census-block data. Those modifications, including socioeconomics, will be addressed by the Legislature and doesn't need to be addressed below with "Low Socioeconomic Backgrounds".0010Modifications need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to students living in poverty. Along with increasing the weight of At-Risk funding, our current statutory cap on the amount of At-Risk Concentration funding should be revisited and lifted. If a district or school serves a high amount of students in poverty, then we should not have arbitrary caps on resources. I found this compelling from the AIR policy brief on State Funding Formulas page 2: "An economically disadvantaged student may not have a specific educational need to be remediated, but a school population of economically disadvantaged students may require smaller classes, early childhood programs, and other services in order to have an equal opportunity to achieve common goals. These school wide interventions also increase the cost to school districts with high concentrations of student need."0010Modifications/increases need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to English Language Learners. A weight of 8% is dismally low and not in line with what the research says is needed funding. All funding for ELL students should be done through the Formula, not through Categoricals, and I would like to explore moving all the funding over the Formula. Lastly, and only if needed, I believe that this could be an appropriate place to address "Students in Specific Grade Levels." ELL students who are entering school at early grades need different interventions and supports than an ELL student who is entering school for the first time in high school.0100Modifications/increases need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to English Language Learners. Similar to my comments on "Concentrations of At-Risk Students" we should have an ELL concentration factor for districts and schools that serve higher numbers of ELL students. Just like At-Risk Concentration, a school population of ELL students likely requires school wide interventions and services.0110Modifications need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to students with special needs. The current amount of $1750 per student with special needs is far below what the research says. Perhaps the recent legislative change that requires SPED funding to go up with inflation is already addressing the funding disparity. If we have a student-centered formula, then these students should be in the formula rather than in Categoricals. I would like to explore moving SPED into the formula AND increasing the amount.1000I believe this can be kept the same. If any modifications are made, I would recommend that we increase equitable access to these types of programs for ALL students, and not just for students and districts that have more resources. Lastly, Gifted and Talented funding is not one of our specific charges, so I am unsure why we are contemplating it.1010I believe that this could be addressed some in the ELL factor. Otherwise, Specific Grade Levels is not one of our specific charges, so I am unsure why we are contemplating it.0110Please see my comments on At-Risk Students. I believe that Socioeconomic Backgrounds can and is being addressed in the new At-Risk measurement that the Legislature now needs to implement.000010000At-Risk Students should be one of our formula factors. Modifications/increases need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to students living in poverty. A weight of 12% is dismally low and not in line with the research that say that the weight should be at least 10 times that amount.10000Please see my other answers on Topic 2. Modifications need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to students living in poverty. Along with increasing the weight of At-Risk funding, our current statutory cap on the amount of At-Risk Concentration funding should be revisited and lifted.10000ELL should be one of our formula factors. A weight of 8% is dismally low and not in line with what the research says is needed funding. All funding for ELL students should be done through the Formula, not through Categoricals, and I would like to explore moving all the funding over the Formula. Lastly, I believe that this could be an appropriate place to address "Students in Specific Grade Levels." ELL students who are entering school at early grades need different interventions and supports than an ELL student who is entering school for the first time in high school.10000Please see my other answers on Topic 2 Modifications/increases need to be made to the weight or amount of funding that is dedicated to English Language Learners. Just like At-Risk Concentration, a school population of ELL students likely requires school wide interventions and services.10011I would like to better explore where it makes the most sense to have SPED funding, either in the formula, in categoricals, or a combination of the two. While the fund amount for SPED is very low, it does appear that the mechanism that Colorado uses to fund SPED students is in line with researched best practices-a combination of Census-Based and Weighted funding.00010Similar comments to last page. I believe this can be kept the same. If any modifications are made, I would recommend that we increase equitable access to these types of programs for ALL students, and not just for students and districts that have more resources. Lastly, Gifted and Talented funding is not one of our specific charges, so I am unsure why we are contemplating it.00000Similar comments to last page. I believe that this could be addressed some in the ELL factor. Otherwise, Specific Grade Levels is not one of our specific charges, so I am unsure why we are contemplating it.00000Please see my comments on At-Risk Students on last page. I believe that Socioeconomic Backgrounds can and is being addressed in the new At-Risk measurement that the Legislature now needs to implement.000
10
62023-09-27What is the rationale for funding some student characteristics in the formula (at-risk) and some through categoricals (e.g. SPED), and then some through both (e.g. ELL is in the formula and in a categorical - why)?If student factors are weighed the most heavily in the formula instead of cost of living, what are the implications for district budgets (i.e. can we use the simulation tool to see how increasing weights for student learning needs and reducing the weight on cost of living affects funding allocations?). Similarly, if the formula were to consider student learning needs in a more effective way, my understanding is that those factors need to be in the top line of the formula. Right now, cost of living is in the top line which then gets multiplied by everything in the formula that follows. The multiplicative nature of the formula results in far too much weight going to cost of living and too little weight going to student factors. It would be great to dive into those aspects of the formula.0010Increase weighting10000010Increase weighting and consolidate into the formula (move all "student factors" into the formula)0100Open to adding this0110Increase weighting and move all SPED funding into the funding formula0010All student factors should be in the funding formula to create a student-centered funding approach. Right now, GT is a categorical. I would recommend moving into the funding formula.0010-Not funded now and I don’t think it is needed unless it is targeted for a purpose (e.g. a 3rd grade literacy fund, which could be a categorical program).1000Will be in the new at-risk factor - go with that000010000100001000010000100001000000010Categorical funding should reflect state priorities. The categoricals could be responsive to different needs at different times, and the legislature could modify them as priorities shift. Specific Grade Level funding could be a categorical in several ways. For example, a fund for 4th graders to receive tutoring and interventions if they are not proficient in reading on the 3rd grade CMAS (TN does this). Or high school students engaging in CTE/career pathways programs may receive stipends (see TN again.)00000Already being included in the new At-Risk measurement000
11
72023-09-27It would be helpful to have a better understanding of why some student-based factors are funded through categoricals and some are included in the formula.I would like to have time to use the school finance simulator tool (although as I stated previously, it does not include CSI students which is problematic) to understand how particular factors affect the formula, such as COL, at-risk, and EL students. CSFP provided some helpful runs with proposed changes last Spring which might be useful for this group.0010Simply, there needs to be an increase in at-risk funding.0010Definitely needs to be increased. Serving communities with a high amount of students in poverty requires a great amount of resources.0010Funding for multi-lingual learners should be increased. Not only should we consider the level of English language acquisition required for a student to become fully proficient, we need to consider the grade of the student since more intensive services may be required with immigrants/refugees/newcomers entering into the upper grades.0010Funding needs to be increased. Across the state, our ELL are not performing well and were particularly challenged during COVID. We need to do more for these students.0010Although we have had modest increases in the last couple of years, we have a long way to go as a state with SPED funding. This has been underfunded for a very long time, and now we are faced with many more students who have SPED needs and the student needs are much more complex. Every school leader will attest to this. Would it be advantageous to include this into the formula? Not sure if that would be helpful or not. Most importantly, we need to increase the funding for SPED students.1010This is a complicated issue for several reasons. To begin, the funding for G/T students is incredibly low which results in too many schools simply not identifying students and choosing to not offer any programming for G/T students. Therefore, we end up having too many G/T students become disengaged and drop out of school. We need to provide much better programming for these students and we must be improve access to these programs for all students. Too many ELL students are not identified and our twice-exceptional students are often left out too.1010While I don't think this is something that this task force was charged with considering, I think the idea has merit. As we know, operating a high school is much more expensive than an elementary school. As the research provided highlighted, many other states are using this method for student funding. Not sure why we have not discussed this more widely in Colorado.0110Seems that this is captured in the new at-risk measurement.00001000010000100001000010000000101000010000000
12
82023-09-27The overview is very helpful. After reading, I used the APP which helped reinforce the numbers. In the APP there was a clear process on the funding model, I would suggest using the same one on the initial reading so everything is connected. Also, for the reading, I would suggest highlighting on the purpose of each box. For example, the at-risk premium is on the graph but I had to look back on the calculation. On page 9" Since the formula for determining the size factor is based on a district's enrollment, the act acknowledges that the formula inherently provides incentives and disincentives for districts to reorganize and take advantage of the formula." If this is a problem, how can this be addressed? Is this something for the task force?Page 10- How is the 65% calculated for charter schools? Page 11- At-risk pupils are currently defined as students from low-income families, measured by eligibility for free and reduced-price lunches under the National School Lunch Act. The official date for counting at-risk pupils is October 1. Students qualify for free and reduced-price meals at school based on their family's income." You mentioned another number that can be used. There has been a significant reduction in FRL for various reasons, therefore, is this the correct measure? Also, note that it doesn't apply to high school. Page 11- a neighborhood socioeconomic status index that weights student needs based on at least five socioeconomic status neighborhood factors linked to each student’s census block group. Is this connected to the child's address or the school location? How would we factor school of choice or students in multiple homes. I like the simulation and it's helpful, but what is the order and does it align to the priorities?0100This is the group that often gets refernced and needs the resources. I am wondering how are we identifying this group. Does it overlap with the other groups; MLL,SPED and low socio backgrounds0100Is this neighborhood, school, program concentration?0100Ensure it aligns to the Consent Decree.01000100It's important to add this, but we should also consider the level of the services needed. Soem students need more and are placed in more intense program which cost more. Other students might just need a few minutes, but still need addtional support.0010This is limited, but how are funds distributed and identied.0010What is it now? Aren't we already adjusting it above.0100This should be combined with the at-risk and we need to define it better.000010000What provides us the closer opportunity to equitable funding? I believe the student weights that can be adjusted makes the most sense and allows for the transparency.1000010100We need to be prepared to shift and support schools that are suddenly impacted with an influx of issues so it doesn;t impact other students.10100This can also include an increase or we dedicate additional funds to programs that specialize in the ELL.10100This changes and we cannot predict the level of students coming in that need additoinal supports. We need to fund based on the students entering the district and also provide district opportunities, to be innovative in requesting reimbursments when needs arise.1100011000The level of services needed for each grade-level are not fully clear. Yes, high schools require more, but that impacts other schools. I would suggest a tiered system and combine it.00000000
13
92023-09-27How were the decisions made about the weights previously? Why are some resources for ELLs provided through the formula and some through categorical?Would love to spend some time looking at specific districts and seeing how the current formula (with the multipliers and all) impact the end amount that a district gets, especially as it relates to districts with and without high at-risk/ELL populations0010We should simplify and increase - every at-risk student should have an added weight of between .75 and 1 and there should be no caps. Without caps and a significant increase in weights, there shouldn’t be a need for concentration.00000010There should be an added weight of between .75 and 100000010It seems like tiers are a strong strategy and they should be built into the formula10000000We don't do this now0000This should be captured000010000We should simplify and increase - every at-risk student should have an added weight of between .75 and 1 and there should be no caps. Without caps and a significant increase in weights, there shouldn’t be a need for concentration.0000010000There should be an added weight of between .75 and 10000000001A few successful states have leveraged tiers to a limit and in extreme cases, using a reimbursement model for extremely high-needs students000100000000000Should be captured by at-risk000
14
102023-09-27I do not fully understand the neighborhood socioeconomic status index connected with at-risk funding.What is the reason for using a concentration weight for at-risk population above the state average? Is there a specific reason why states don't using some sort of per-pupil weight? For example, why not fund districts at a weight of 1.1 for each at-risk student above the state average? (I just threw the number 1.1 out there for the sake of an example, it wasn't meant as a funding suggestion.) Why do we use a concentration factor instead and how was it decided to be capped at 18%?0010I would like more information on how well the new definition of at-risk is working. I didn't think the new definition was in full effect yet. From the reading material provided, it is clear that Colorado is not coming anywhere near the recommended levels of funding for students that come from poverty.00100010A school district seems to be punished (when it comes to funding) if they help a student to quickly assess as a "fluent" English proficiency level. In reality, if a school district has a high concentration of FEP students, additional resources are much needed.0100Maybe a concentration factor for FEP?0010While the recent changes (Tier B) have been welcome. Special Education remains severely underfunded. Also, why are the funds flowed through the administrative unit instead of the school district?0010Frankly, there isn't enough funding to do anything with, at least in the setting of rural school districts.00010010Isn't this the same as At-Risk?0010Foster, homeless, and migrant all need addressed. These costs continue to rise.10000000101000000010101001000000000Grade levels should all be funded the same.10000000
15
112023-09-27Size factor looks at district numbers. What about a school not in a geographic district (CSI school)... how is this determined? Cost of living factor - if in a wealthier area/district, does the district get extra funds to pay teachers more (cost of housing is higher)? Is this fair for districts with higher at-risk populations?Would like someone to show an example of using the School Finance Simulator - hard to navigate. I would like to talk more about the cost of living factor - based on my question above, an argument could be made to adjust so wealthier (more expense to live) districts get more funds, even if students may not need the extra support.0010increased support0010increased support0010increased support0100increased support0110increased support and state support fpr certain disabilities/needs100010100110As a school leader at a school with over 97% FRL, I see the need for added supports/resources00001000010000important to have extra resources/supports1000010000101000001010011this is a difficult one to address - overall an argument could be made that high school students require more resources. And also not sure if this is an area this task force should be looking at?10000this is needed for extra support... and maybe this can be addressed in the increase for at-risk?000
16
122023-09-28Soooo many formulas and adjustments. The scenarios were extremely helpful. There are so many multiples and additions that the overall formulas are very complicated. With the addition of ELL funding streams - how will this be addressed in the equation. Also will these funding formula's be allocated to students who attend the Charter School Institute schools?Need to have a deeper dive looking at the order of operations within our current formula. Due to the Cost of Living multiples - what impact will this have on the equation based on ELL and At-Risk students.0010Funding needs to be increased and should include ELL0001Appears to be double-dipping. How would this be calculated? It should be included in the above calculations.0010ELL needs to be one of the funding categories with increases based on current student populations.0001Appears to be double-dipping. How would this be calculated? It should be included in the above calculations.100010000001Except for highschoolers after the age of 21.0001This should be calculated under the At-Risk Students calculated.0000100010000110000All the funding should be in this formula and not categorical.0000110001000100000000000000
17
132023-09-28Shouldn't special education be a factor, rather than a categorical? Categoricals are a set amount of money determined by history (2000 level and adjusted for inflation), not by need.Intersectionalities -- how should a formula address students who have two or more special factors (i.e., special ed, gifted, at-risk, ELL).0010We need a better measure than FRL. Looking forward to learning where the working group got.10000110It needs to be higher than the current 8%0100This might not be necessary -- if the factor actually came close to the actual additional costs. That's why we need a PJ study. To find that out.0110Should be a factor, not just a categorical afterthought0110GT could be a factor (again with data from a costing out study informing it). There is not enough in the categorical pot to meet their needs. If it were a factor, there would be a greated incentive to test all students -- as it stands, many gifted students aren't identified as such because of biases regarding income, race, and learning differences.0000need more information0100What does "at-risk" mean? We know poverty is one risk factor. Need clarification about whether poverty is a proxy for at risk, or whether it should be a stand alone, and that "at-risk" adds other characteristics that require additional resources.0100Intersectionalities. (e.g., providing GT programming for students learning English)100001000010000100001000010001We need data about which would better incentivize districts to do universal screening that would identify GT students in populations that are traditionally overlooked (e.g., ELL, special needs, at-risk)0000110000000
18
142023-09-28001000100010should provide ACTUAL costs of providing service00100010should reflect ACTUAL costs of providing service0010000100100000100001000000010add in size component00010add in size to adjust for economy of scale000000001000000not sure should be included10000000
19
152023-09-28NoCOL- local capability- benefits wealthier districts- determine what role COL should serve in the funding formula and ensure it is equitable. The needs of districts to accentuate budgets are not equal- in regard to MLO. I think this should be a discussion at some point.1000Concerned about the use of census data in the new approach to determining at-risk. This will not provide accurate information.0010100000100010Do away with categorical funding and include 100% in formula10001000100000001000010000100001000010000000110100110000000
20
162023-09-28I think the readings have done a good job of explaining how funding in Colorado is allocated; I personally do not need any additional contextNot necessarily at the next task force meeting; I think that agenda is full.0100010001000100010010000001010000001000010000100001000011000100000000010000000
21
172023-09-28Why are At-Risk, Special Education, and ELL factors funded so low? It appears that there are different funding factors in different parts of the funding formula? Why? Why would all student need factors be included in a single part of the formula?Why cost of living is weighed so heavily in the formula? It seems that student factors should be the greatest weight in the formula. I'd love to explore what difference that might lead to in the funding scenario.0010Increase10000010Increase and consolidate0100Add0110Increase weighting and consolidate into single factor0010This should be included in the formula instead of funded separately.00101000000010000100001000010000100001000000010Should reflect state priorities00000000