MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Every Alabama school district would receive more money for each student under three newly proposed school funding formulas, according to figures lawmakers received during the joint legislative K-12 funding commission meeting on Monday.
How much more money is far from set in stone, but the three funding models may lay a “path that we think is potentially pursuable,” said House education budget committee leader Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville.
Garrett and Senate education budget chair Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, are co-chairing the commission created last spring to consider modernizing Alabama’s three-decade-old Foundation Program, the state’s primary mechanism for funding K-12 schools.
Alabama’s current funding formula doesn’t target student needs, including those with learning disabilities, language barriers, gifted students and those living in poverty. Nor does it provide local school officials the flexibility they need to meet those students’ needs.
“We basically say, ‘Here’s the money. Here’s how you have to spend it for these units.’ And that influences how they budget,” Garrett said.
Currently, the state bases funding on a student count to determine staffing needs. Most states have shifted to more modern formulas designed to better target student needs and local priorities.
It’s important to note, Garrett said, that the commission’s work is focused solely on the state portion of school funding.
“Any local money is not part of our discussion,” he said. “That will stay with the locals.”
The proposed formulas, which would target student needs like those faced in high-poverty schools, would increase costs anywhere from $713 million to $825 million – on top of the current $5.4 billion being spent on K-12 schools – after the formula is phased in over a five-year period.
District-level models were provided as well. The table below shows the information lawmakers received during the meeting. The table shows the current per pupil Foundation Program funding for each district and the amounts that would be funded per student through each model. Click here if you are unable to see the table. Details on the models are in this presentation.
Orr and Garrett stressed a gradual approach.
“They’ve done this elsewhere,” Orr said. “We would have a pot of money to help students or help systems not be losers during that period of implementation.”
Legislative Fiscal Director Kirk Fulford said the state already has sufficient reserves in multiple funds to cover the incremental cost of transitioning to a new formula.
Bellwether consultant Jennifer Schiess told lawmakers they have three critical decisions to make which will determine the final cost.
“One, what is the base amount,” Schiess said. “Two, what are the weights for student needs and how much are those weights valued? And then finally, are there additional priorities that you want to signal in your formula based on community characteristics or something else that would sit at the top?”
Student needs that were considered for weighting in the models shown to lawmakers include:
- Escalating weight for increasing poverty levels with consideration for concentrated poverty,
- Three increasing weights for students with disabilities based on categories of disability,
- English learner funding
- Gifted learner funding that doesn’t exist currently
- Rural school consideration where students are spread thinly,
- Charter school weight to make up for the lack of access to local tax funding and the inability to raise taxes.
The weights that were modeled are in the image below.
Total costs were then calculated under each model showing how much additional funding schools would receive for each type of student. The image below shows those figures.
One key aspect not yet ripe for discussion was accountability for student outcomes. Lawmakers expressed a desire to see clearer metrics to ensure that additional funding means measurable improvements.
“I don’t think we’re at the point where we’re going to say that this is the program and this will work,” Rep. Van Smith, R- Billingsley, said. “The accountability piece has got to be there.”
Still, Smith believes the proposed changes will benefit schools, particularly those serving rural communities, students with disabilities and English learners. "This will be beneficial to them,” he said.
Rep. David Faulkner, R-Mountain Brook, emphasized the need for transparency and evidence before committing to new funding weights. “We, as legislators, have to make sure that the money is being spent appropriately and that there is accountability for the money,” he said.
Faulkner also stressed the importance of seeing more fleshed out details of the need.
“Don’t just say give me more money,” he added, acknowledging that challenges like poverty often require additional resources. “Because we (lawmakers) have to decide how much more money. And in order to decide how much more money to give you, we need to see what you’re spending that money on.”
Orr said accountability measures will likely be attached to the new formula, but they need to ensure that more money leads to more success.
“If you're going to provide more money and resources to school districts, then we want to see over time that investment pay off like any good investor would want,” Orr said.
“That is something that is important to some, if not all, members: that we do get that accountability factor for the increased investment,” Orr added. “But we've got to first arm the schools with additional resources to make those changes as needed at the local level.”
House Education Policy Committee Chair Terri Collins, R-Decatur, also expressed optimism about the proposed changes.
“I really believe we will experience the gains from actually putting funding towards the things we know cost more,” she said, adding the importance of getting the accountability piece right.
A+ Education Partnership President Mark Dixon said the meeting was intended to provide lawmakers with specific information to consider.
“The goal of today was really to give a lot more specifics that give members time to think about this with their local districts," Dixon said.
After the meeting, Garrett outlined the next steps, including the importance of lawmakers getting feedback from their constituents and education community.
“Chairman Orr and I are working to push us to some decision before the (legislative session that starts in February,” he told reporters. “We’ve got the pedal to the metal right now. We’ll just see where we’re going.”
Garrett said his personal goal is to pass legislation updating the formula during the upcoming session.
“But this is a very heavy lift,” he added. “That’s why it’s important that we get some consensus among the education community, and of course, among the House and Senate as well, and the governor.”