Nonprofit Mississippi News The House was preparing to debate Wednesday’s plan to end the Mississippi Adequate Education Program. However, the talking points provided by the House Republicans regarding the bill still leave many questions unanswered. The main question is whether current funds that are going to education programs, but not covered by the formula, will be covered by this new formula. And whether schools will actually get more money. The handout entitled “Talking Points for House Bill 957” states that the bill will increase the overall education investment by more than $107 million over its expected final implementation year. It is still unknown where the $107 million will come. Richard Bennett, a Republican representing Long Beach in the House Education Committee, said last week to the Associated Press that money outside the formula for areas like National Board Certified Teacher salary supplement, vocational and technical education and 3rd grade literacy coaches could be swept into the new allocation. This statement raises questions as to whether schools will actually see an increase in funding, or if existing funds will be moved around. Meg Annison is a spokesperson for Speaker Philip Gunn. She authored House Bill 957. Annison stated that funding sources will be determined each fiscal year on the basis of revenue. The current fiscal year’s funding for schools will be the same as it was in the previous two years. However, some schools could see small increases in funding in response to an increase in student enrollment. The handout defends the use of Census rather than free or reduced lunch (students below 130 percent of poverty income threshold and between 130-185 percent of poverty income threshold). These numbers are used to calculate low income students. The new rule allows schools to offer free or reduced meals to all students in school districts that have a certain number of students who are on public assistance. This is because the data has been “completely distorted.” However, several lawmakers expressed concern that Census data is inaccurate as they include students who are enrolled in private schools. This could lead to a distortion of the low-income population in local public schools. The new formula grants low-income students funding equal to 25 percent of the base student costs, or $1,200 more. The current formula considers 70% of students in the state ‘at-risk’, which means that 5 percent more funding is available to these students. The bill will increase that number to 25% and target funds better to districts with the greatest need students. “Because Census poverty data is not published by the government, and there is no direct correlation between high Census poverty rates, participation in other safety net programs and high Census poverty rates, it eliminates concerns about incorrectly identifying low income student populations,” the handout states. The document also defends the decision of keeping the 27 percent rule. This allows districts with large property values to be eligible for additional state funds. This allows them to maintain a lower local tax rate. The 27 percent rule allows property-rich districts to receive $120 million in state funds, instead of making those funds available to districts in need. It states that the bill “affirms the legislature’s commitment to continuing taxpayer equity for all municipalities by calling for the study of alternative options to the 27 per cent rule, but it reflects the realizations that funding policy with such dramatic potential effects should not be legislated overnight.” Rebecca Sibilia (CEO of EdBuild), called the 27-percent rule “inequitable” as well as “not good for children,” and the group’s key recommendations included the elimination of that provision.