House education panels debate SEG formula changes, propose family income index and separate English‑learner weight

Legislative analysts and the Public Education Department on Wednesday presented competing recommendations to revise the State Equalization Guarantee (SEG), proposing to replace parts of the current at‑risk calculations with a family income index and to create a stand‑alone weight for English learners.

The proposals matter because they change how state funding follows students and how districts will be able to target resources. John (LESC staff) and Sonny Liu, LFC analyst for public schools, told the House Education Committee the two legislative recommendations are aligned on the core mechanism but differ on compensation and some weight increases. "We did agree with the LESC recommendations to replace the at risk index with the family income index and have a stand alone English learner factor," Sonny Liu said.

Under both legislative plans the current at‑risk factors tied to Title I and mobility units would be removed (accounting subtractions in the SEG) and replaced with the family income index plus a separate English‑learner factor. Committee staff described the swaps as largely an accounting move — money is removed from old line items and added to new ones — but said the distributional effects would be different because the family income index is calculated at the school and household level.

Both LESC and LFC staff said the family income index can identify which specific schools and students generate additional funding, while SEG dollars remain discretionary once distributed to districts. John (LESC staff) said the new mechanism would allow the state to track the school origin of funds in ways not currently possible: "With the new methodology ... we would actually be able to track ... how much of a district's at risk appropriation was generated by a particular school." The secretary of public education said the department supports the index as a methodology but emphasized the value of a separate recurring appropriation for a targeted family income index program to get resources directly to schools.

The recommendations also include increases to secondary funding weights. Staff said raising the grade 7–12 factor to 1.30 would cost about $51,000,000; increasing the sixth‑grade factor to the same level would cost roughly $40,000,000. Sonny Liu and other analysts warned a substantial secondary weight increase could create future budget pressure because projected enrollment declines mean fewer students will be in secondary grades in coming years.

Committee members and staff emphasized next steps: studying the distributional effects at the school level, confirming how the switches would appear in districts' budgets, and reconciling whether program‑level appropriations (a targeted $9,000,000 family income index program, per the secretary's presentation) should be restored as recurring funding. The presenters will return Friday for follow‑up questions and modeling.

The meeting included extended Q&A on how the proposed changes would affect district budgeting and the need for additional study before lawmakers finalize formula language.