Lawmakers debate raising secondary student weight, House Bill 63 funding changes

A legislative presentation and extended committee discussion Tuesday outlined sizable changes to the state public school support budget and the school funding formula under proposals in House Bill 63 and the House appropriations substitute.

The presentation by Legislative Education Study Committee staff and Legislative Finance Committee staff described three central changes: replacing the current at‑risk methodology with a family income index, creating a stand‑alone English learner factor, and increasing the secondary factor — the unit weight for grades 6–12. "The proposal . . . is to increase the factor for all grades 6 through 12 to 1.3," said John Cena, director from LESC, during the briefing.

Why it matters: The secondary factor change is intended to direct more recurring money to middle and high schools to cover career and technical education (CTE), fine and performing arts, counseling and behavioral supports and similar services. Cena said fully funding the working group's proposal would add roughly $91.3 million a year; the current House appropriation substitutes include a smaller increase, enough to move sixth grade partially toward parity with higher grades but not to the 1.3 level for all secondary grades.

Committee members pressed staff about how new or larger recurring appropriations would flow to districts and how much local control schools would keep. Sonny Lou, an LFC analyst, explained differences in how money is delivered: appropriations added to the State Equalization Guarantee (SEG) flow monthly and give districts local flexibility, while funding tied to a specific factor requires districts to demonstrate they ran the program to receive that money. "Adding money to the formula . . . provides some local flexibility for school districts to make decisions about their funding," Lou said.

Several senators urged specific attention to CTE. Senator Brent said CTE concentrators show large graduation gains and argued for either a CTE factor or a below‑the‑line targeted fund. LESC and LFC staff said the secondary factor increase was intended to give districts flexibility to use funds for CTE where it is a local priority, but also noted challenges in funding CTE uniformly because program costs vary by field (for example, nursing versus heavy machinery) and because federal Carl Perkins maintenance‑of‑effort rules limit how the state can change recurring operational funding.

Other line‑item adjustments included nonrecurring and recurring additions in the House Finance Committee substitute: $10 million recurring for secondary education reforms listed on the high‑level handout; a $5 million hold‑harmless appropriation related to formula changes; increases for STEM and STEAM initiatives; higher special education and Indian education appropriations; and increases for school meals, fellows and summer enrichment programs. Sonny Lou summarized the package as "mostly a nonrecurring" set of adjustments layered on the ongoing base.

Committee members also asked about timing and predictability for districts that must plan budgets months in advance, especially small districts that rely on the SEG. LFC staff and committee members discussed options including targeted nonrecurring hold‑harmless funds for districts that were early adopters of expanded programs and potential next steps if the legislature does not adopt the full working‑group proposal.

The committee did not take a formal vote on House Bill 63 during the hearing. Staff said the House appropriation substitute already includes portions of the working‑group recommendations and that members and staff will need to decide whether to fund the remaining components and at what level during budget negotiations.