MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Association of School Boards is raising concerns on a proposal lawmakers are considering to change the state’s K-12 school funding formula from one based on head count to one based on student needs.
Proponents of the new formula say the AASB’s calculations are inaccurate and premature.
In a newsletter sent to all school board members on Friday, the AASB shared projections of what each school system would receive on a per student basis in 2031, five years after the new model could take effect, if they stuck with the Foundation Program formula versus what districts might receive using a weighted formula that funds students with special needs or from high-poverty homes at a higher rate.
According to their analysis, some districts may not benefit from future revenue increases.
“Lawmakers are being told every system will get more money, but going forward, some systems will not get as much of the revenue growth. This is true, but not the whole story,” AASB wrote.
The AASB labeled about one-third of Alabama’s traditional school districts as potential “big losers” because their per-student funding would be much higher under the current Foundation Program formula than what the AASB’s projections showed the districts would get under a needs-based formula. AASB based their projections on amounts originally calculated by Bellwether, the consultant group helping lawmakers with the potential new formula.
Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, is co-chair of the joint legislative school funding commission and chairman of the House education budget committee. Garrett is a proponent of the change to a student-weighted formula and argued the AASB’s analysis is flawed.
“I would just say that if the school board association lobbyist had an assignment to report on what the committee has been doing, they would have received a failing grade because they either don’t understand our discussions or they missed the part where we said no system would lose funding if we went forward with this,” Garrett told Alabama Daily News on Monday.
“I don’t know if they just don’t understand or if this is a way of resisting change … the way you thwart legislation is to create confusion, and I don’t know if that was deliberate.”
Garrett said the numbers and models discussed by the study commission were templates, not final recommendations. Garrett also said the commission has asked for and wants education groups’ feedback, but AASB used numbers in its projections that no one has agreed upon.
Rep. Jamie Kiel, R-Russellville, is also on the funding commission and echoed Garrett’s points, saying that no projections have been finalized.
“No one has gotten that far,” he said.
Kiel said funding schools based on student need would help some schools in his district more than others.
“I have schools that have high (English learner) populations, (and) I have schools without (EL) populations,” Kiel said.
“I have schools that are high poverty. I have some that are very low poverty. And so it’s not about individual school systems, or what money a school system can grab. It’s more about, does it cost more to educate a child who lives in a rural area than one who lives in a city area? Does it cost more to educate a child who does not speak the English language than one who does? Does it cost more to educate a child who has learning disabilities or physical disabilities? And the answers to all of these things are yes. And we’re not funding schools that way.”
AASB Executive Director Sally Smith said the reason they made projections is because their school board members need more clarity and the ability to compare the current funding system to the proposed model.
Calling the comparisons “complicated” and “tricky” because of the multiple weights and still-undetermined base, Smith said their analysis shows that the commission may need to look at more models.
“We know this is a moving target and we are responding to give feedback,” Smith said, adding that board members need information now because there is not a lot of time for public input.
The commission is expected to meet again in January to finalize the formula, though no date for the meeting has been set. Lawmakers have indicated they will introduce legislation to create a student-weighted formula during the next legislative session. It starts Feb. 4.
Smith said the AASB has been asking proponents for yearly funding projections but has not received them.
“We’ve been clear about our concerns about the loss of future growth or adjustment to the base,” she said. “We were helping school leaders understand how the loss of future growth could impact them.”
The AASB’s comparison showed 18 school districts would receive more money under a student-weighted formula than from expected growth of the current Foundation Program model by 2031. In contrast, 97 districts would receive more money under the current Foundation Program model than through a student-weighted formula.
A+ Education Partnership President Mark Dixon said the AASB’s analysis is based on incorrect assumptions.
“Whether we stick with the status quo system or move to a new system centered on student needs, there will still be teacher pay raises, which are the biggest driver of funding increases,” Dixon wrote in a statement to ADN Monday.
“This comparison is inaccurate and misleading because it assumes funding will increase each year under the current system without a similar expectation that teacher salaries will increase under a new system. Every school district would gain under a new system.”
The AASB said the state needs to realign school funding with student needs “in a way to provide a real benefit to all public school students.”
“Modernizing the school funding formula will require a significant commitment to ensure the real-time costs of a K-12 public education are accurately calculated and annually reassessed,” Smith said. “It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address educational inadequacies, resolve funding discrepancies, and close achievement gaps. It is imperative the Legislature get this right.”
The AASB is holding a webinar for school board members on Wednesday to discuss the new funding formula further.
Alabama Daily News’ Mary Sell contributed to this report.