Nonprofit Mississippi News As Mississippi lawmakers consider a radical rewrite in how schools are funded, a national review of public school funding has revealed that 28 other states have used a similar formula. Richard Bennett, Chairman of the House Education Committee, is a supporter for the legislation that is currently before lawmakers. He extols the benefits of the formula to Mississippi students. Bennett stated in an op-ed that the formula is 100% student-based. This means that the most important consumer of our public schools system, the student, is the key building block of the new formula. Bennett says the current state formula, Mississippi Adequate Education Program (MAEP), is too complicated and focuses on students instead of programs. He wrote that the new formula would allow funding to be more transparent and help students in greatest need. The base amount required to educate a general education student without any special needs or circumstances is called student-centered funding or weighted student funding. Depending on the characteristics of each student, additional funding or weights are added to this amount. However, not all states have the same base amount. Opponents of Mississippi’s plan point out that the current legislation doesn’t require periodic recalculations of the base student amount. The proposed Mississippi base student cost is $4,800. This is lower than the $5,381.52 per pupil amount required by the state’s MAEP funding formula. This school year, however, the full amount was not appropriated. Since its inception in 1997, the MAEP formula was only partially funded twice. According to private research firm EdBuild’s January 2017 recommendations, the new $4,800 student cost was suggested. They stated that the $4,000.0 amount “will exceed current effective base funding by $164” and that Mississippi Department of Education officials could not calculate a per-pupil amount using this year’s total state appropriation. The $4,800 proposed base student amount would be comparable to surrounding states. It would exceed the $2,425 per pupil in South Carolina, which is close to the $4.203.95 in Florida, but less than the $6.713 in Arkansas. Kentucky, however, calculates its base student cost every 2 years. Arkansas legislators use a “matrix”, which determines the appropriate level of funding for each year. According to the Arkansas Department of Education’s school finances manual, the base student cost in fiscal 2016 was $6,584 and fiscal 2017 was $6,646. The Parents’ Campaign, a public education advocacy group, urges members to not support the bill. This is because it “contains an objective formula for determining the base student cost; doesn’t require that funding keep up with inflation; and does not make provision for a recalculation of seven years.” Student-centered funding means that money will go to students who are most in need, such as English learners, low-income students, and students with special needs. In reality, however, many states adapt their school funding formulas according to what they are able to spend. Mike Griffith, a school finance strategist at the Education Commission of the States said that in most cases the dollar amount per student represents what the state is able to afford. This was specifically about how states determine the base student cost. (Gov. Phil Bryant is the current Chair of the Education Commission of the States. The formulas are different, funded at different amounts in each state, and research is limited on the statewide implementation. After a 1989 court ruling, Kentucky Kentucky changed its school funding system to be student-centered. The state legislature adopted Support Education Excellence in Kentucky (or SEEK) which provides a basic amount for students without special needs and services, then adds weights for English learners, low-income, and special education status. It also includes gifted and talented students, career and technical education, and weights for English learners. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison did a 2001 study on Kentucky’s funding system. The study examined 10 years worth of data between 1990 and 2000. It found that equity in funding for school districts has improved over the past decade. There was an “high degree” of equity in districts that received less revenue over the same period, while high-revenue districts didn’t gain more than average. Under the SEEK formula, Kentucky has a significant degree of fiscal equity. The authors noted that revenue per pupil differences are very small and that the link between property wealth, revenue per pupil, is almost gone. “Kentucky policymakers shouldn’t be complacent about equity, but it seems that revenue inequities at this point are not a problem to the state,” the authors wrote. The remaining questions concern adequacy, that is, whether schools have sufficient funding to reach their academic goals. According to the authors, lawmakers should establish a “high SEEK basis,” which could require that the base student amount be adjusted. The next step is to determine what the adequate revenue level should be. It should be set at a level that allows school districts to allocate enough money to each school in the state for them to implement powerful educational strategies.” This will help the state meet its goals which include ensuring all students achieve proficiency on state exams. They also recommended that lawmakers make sure future funding levels keep up with inflation. The study concluded that this would create a system that is both adequate and more equitable — something only a few school finance systems can achieve at the moment. California, California passed the Local Control Funding Formula (LCF) in 2013 to improve equity across the state. Proposition 30, which generated $7.5 billion annually in tax revenue, was also passed by California. The new formula was also introduced. The formula creates a base student cost that is different for each grade, then adds weights to students who are English learners or low-income. According to EdBuild’s national database, the state provides additional funding for special education and small schools, as well as increased funding for low-income students or other at-risk school districts. According to an Education Trust-West 2017 study, California’s funding system was more equitable than before the new formula. School districts that had the lowest poverty rates received more money per student than those with high numbers of students living in poverty. Three years later, the funding system was more equitable in the state. But the results weren’t perfect and there were still gaps in resources access. The report said that students from the poorest schools still have less access to certain services and opportunities than those in the best schools. Their schools are less likely have counselors or librarians on staff, and are less likely offer college preparatory courses. However, in certain content areas like music and computer science, this gap has actually increased. The formula may have changed but many policies and laws are the same. The report revealed that districts are receiving more money, but are still subject to many of the same policy constraints. Local laws and state laws limit how districts can pay teachers and how many students can be enrolled in one class. Hawaii Hawaii is an exceptional example. The entire state is considered one school district and the communities do not have to contribute any local taxes. In 2006, Hawaii adopted its school funding formula. The formula includes a base student cost and additional funds for English learners, English learners, special education students, low-income, gifted, transient, and kindergartners. The formula provides additional funding for students who live on nearby islands and for programs related to career and technical education. The base student cost in Hawaii this year was $4,239.53. The base student cost in Hawaii was $4,239.53. The study also highlighted a problem in any weighted student financing formula: “determining how discretion should be divided among the central office and schools sites.” A pilot project by the U.S. Department of Education could signal a growing trend towards student-centered funding mechanisms. Betsy DeVos, the U.S. Secretary for Education, recently announced a pilot program that will allow 50 school districts to create their student-centered funding formulas. This will combine federal, state, and local funds and give them more flexibility. To be eligible for the 2018-2019 school years, districts must submit their applications before March 12. The press release that announced the program stated that districts will be able to combine Federal and State funds to help them allocate resources to schools according to the need of their students. DeVos stated that this type of system is often called “student-centered financing” or “weighted student funds.” It is widely believed to be modern, transparent, and quantifiable, and will allow school districts to combine eligible Federal funds with State and local funds to help students in greatest need. “Instead of relying upon complicated federal rules to allocate funds to students, local leaders can use that flexibility to match funds — either local, state, or federal — to their needs.” However, critics, including those in Mississippi, speculate that DeVos support for such a funding method shows just how weighted student financing can help charter schools and vouchers. DeVos supports vouchers and charter schools as a form of school choice. Opponents claim that if students are given a higher amount and money could be following them in a “school choice” program, charter and private schools could siphon more money from public education.