House committee approves rewrite of school funding formula, adds family income index and standalone English‑learner factor

The House Education Committee on an unrecorded date approved House Bill 63 as amended, a multi‑year package of changes to the State Equalization Guarantee (SEG) formula that replaces the existing “at‑risk” index with a family income index, separates English learners into a standalone program unit and moves sixth grade into the secondary factor.

Proponents said the changes are intended to target funding more precisely to students living in poverty and to middle‑school and high‑school programs. “Sixth grade is important for them to be counted as middle school,” Michael Rodriguez, executive director for Dual Language Education of New Mexico, said during public comment. He added that separating English‑learner funding will “help to ensure that we are being equitable in how we are serving them.”

The bill’s sponsors and staff described the main changes: the at‑risk index would be replaced by a family income index intended to better identify students living in poverty; the English learner component would be pulled out of the combined at‑risk measure into its own factor so districts can see the explicit money generated for those students; sixth grade would be incorporated into the secondary factor; and the secondary factor would be increased in weight. The committee heard an estimated fiscal effect reported in the hearing (see clarifying details) and that an approximately $5 million one‑year “save harmless” appropriation is included to mitigate immediate losses for schools that would otherwise lose funding in the transition.

An amendment discussed and adopted during the hearing adds technical language to ensure that newly chartered schools use the funding factors of the district in which they are located until they have three years of their own data to calculate averages. Daniel Estupignan, a policy analyst who testified with the bill team, said the language prevents large year‑to‑year fluctuations for new charter schools.

Witnesses representing school superintendents, school boards, charter schools, labor and civic groups expressed broad support. Stan Rounds, speaking for the New Mexico School Superintendents Association (and noting he was also bringing comments for the New Mexico School Boards Association), said the changes “begin to delineate where the real costs and real needs are.” Matt Paul of Public Charter Schools of New Mexico supported the bill but urged consideration of a longer hold‑harmless period, noting some charter schools would lose funding under the new calculation and asking appropriators to consider a three‑year phase‑in. Several other organizations — including Public Service Company of New Mexico, the Llano Foundation, the National Education Association of New Mexico, AFT‑New Mexico and the League of Women Voters/AAUW — testified in favor.

An online commenter, Amy Taylor, cautioned the committee not to overstate the effect on career and technical education (CTE): “House Bill 63 supports CTE. It does not explicitly support CTE. There’s nothing in that bill that says that CTE must be funded,” she said, noting that additional targeted appropriations are typically required to guarantee funding for specific programs.

Committee members asked staff how the measure interacts with the Yazzie‑Martinez litigation and recent education funding changes. Staff said the Martinez‑Yazzie court called for increased resources for students in need; HB 63 increases the at‑risk/poverty‑related factor from its current level to 0.4 and uses the family income index to better target dollars to students generating those units. Staff also confirmed the draft bill contains a one‑year hold‑harmless (some witnesses urged a multi‑year hold‑harmless) and that a small number of districts could see drops under the new methodology, which the hold‑harmless is intended to offset for the immediate next fiscal year.

After adopting the amendment, the committee moved and seconded the measure and, seeing no objection, passed House Bill 63 as amended. The committee record shows the motion to pass was described as “moved and seconded to pass House Bill 63 as amended by Representative Baca, seconded by Representative Corolla,” and committee members indicated no objection.

The bill now advances from the committee as amended; the bill text and fiscal note will determine final appropriations and any additional transition funding the Legislature may add.

Ending: Supporters said the measure focuses money on older students and English learners and aims at delivering funding to schools enrolling students who generate those units; some witnesses urged a longer transition/hold‑harmless period for districts and charter schools that would lose money under the new formula.