Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 22 committee reviews state EPS framework and ED 279 funding breakdown showing $9.6M local requirement
Summary
School staff reviewed Maine's Essential Programs and Services (EPS) funding model and the ED 279 form for RSU 22, explaining how state and local shares were calculated and reporting a required local contribution of about $9.6 million toward a total allocation of roughly $31.3 million.
RSU 22 staff reviewed how Maine's Essential Programs and Services (EPS) formula and the ED 279 funding form determine state and local shares for school funding, telling the school committee that the district's locally funded share for the current calculation is about $9.6 million of a roughly $31.3 million total.
The presenter (staff member) told the committee that EPS is an adequacy funding model designed "to ensure that all schools have the programs and resources that are essential for all students to have an equitable opportunity to achieve Maine learning results." The presenter added that EPS "is not a prescription of how the fund should be spent" and that local districts retain control over staffing ratios and program choices.
Committee members were shown a packet describing EPS and a separate ED 279 worksheet, the state Department of Education form that applies district data (enrollment, staff FTE, budget data and local valuations) to compute the state subsidy and the required local contribution. Using the ED 279 figures shown to the committee, the presenter said the ED 279 total is about $31,271,000 and the four towns in RSU 22 must contribute about $9,600,000 to secure the full state allocation (the packet summarizes that as roughly a 31% local share and a 69% state share for this calculation).
The presenter noted demographic and trend factors that affect the calculation: RSU 22 is about 15% above the EPS baseline for FY24 (meaning the district budgets about 15% more than the EPS recommendation), statewide enrollment has declined over 20 years, and RSU 22 showed a reduction in subsidizable pupils of about 77.5 (with a single-year decline of roughly 40 in the most recent year). The packet also highlighted that some components used in EPS (for example, social workers and increased support for homeless students under McKinney-Vento) are not always reflected in the original formula.
Committee members asked for comparative figures for nearby districts. The presenter said regional districts typically range from about 10% to 25% above EPS and offered to provide exact comparisons if requested. The presenter also emphasized that the ED 279 relies on reported valuation averages (three-year averages) and student counts submitted in the October reporting period; if enrollment declines persist over multiple years the district's allocation will be affected in future cycles.
The packet shown to the committee included a stakeholder summary (compiled by the Maine Education Policy Research Institute, METRI) that committee members said aligned with their experiences: concerns that EPS language is subjective, that the formula does not reflect current costs for necessary services, and that rising costs put pressure on property taxpayers. Committee members discussed the tension between providing services and managing local tax impact.
No formal vote or motion was made during the presentation; the session was informational and committee members asked for follow-up data (district-by-district comparisons and the final ED 279 figures when they are available).
