House Education briefing highlights proposed formula overhaul, teacher pay increases and K‑12 plus funding

House Education members heard competing but similar budget recommendations Wednesday from Legislative Finance Committee analysts, Legislative Education Study Committee staff and the Public Education Department on how to fund K‑12 education in the coming year.

The presenters said the three budgets largely align on three headline changes: replacing the current ‘‘at‑risk’’ measure with a family income index that identifies poverty at the school level, creating a standalone English‑learner factor, and increasing the secondary grade weight used in the State Equalization Guarantee (SEG). The recommendations also include funding to cover additional school days under the state’s K‑12 plus program and proposals to raise educator pay.

Why it matters: the changes would shift how state K‑12 dollars are targeted to schools and students. Lawmakers were told the proposals are intended to direct more funds to schools with higher concentrations of poverty and to clarify funding for English learners, while also addressing district requests to cover expanded school calendars and to raise compensation amid rising benefit costs.

Most important details - Family income index vs. historic at‑risk: Staff described the budgetary mechanics of removing several current pieces of the at‑risk calculation and substituting the family income index as the poverty indicator. Presenters said the index lets the state identify which specific schools generate additional funds, though SEG money remains discretionary at the district level. Preparers noted a separate family‑income‑index program appropriation the secretary referenced (about $9 million) was not included in the LFC and LESC recurring recommendations.

- English learners: Both legislative recommendations would add a stand‑alone factor to allocate extra funding for English learners and for students for up to two years after they exit English‑learner status.

- Secondary weight and K‑12 plus units: The LESC recommendation includes a $51 million addition to increase the secondary factor (grades 7–12). Staff said the state also must fund units already generated under k‑12 plus (the program that pays school districts/charters for days above the statutory baseline) to cover added days that districts have already scheduled.

- Compensation: The executive and LESC proposals assume a 3% salary increase for education personnel; LFC proposed a 4% increase. Presenters also described proposals to raise teacher minimums to higher tiered levels (amounts described in committee documents). Participants warned that compensation is the single largest driver of recurring spending differences among the recommendations.

- Special education and other programmatic concerns: The secretary highlighted a roughly $4 million shortfall in the LFC recommendation for the department’s special education work, including professional development and a recently piloted “Stay in School” initiative. She and analysts urged caution before backing out recurring funds tied to services used in high‑need schools.

- Recurring vs. nonrecurring: Analysts warned about relying on nonrecurring appropriations for ongoing needs. Staff said the state has increased nonrecurring spending in recent years and urged care so one‑time money does not create recurring obligations.

What presenters said Sonny Liu, LFC analyst for public schools, described the LFC position and warned that increasing the secondary weight significantly could create ‘‘penalties’’ for districts later because secondary enrollment is projected to decline in the coming decade. He also noted that LFC included a modest sixth‑grade weight increase and urged further study before larger weight changes.

The department’s acting secretary said the family income index mechanism is a positive step because it targets school‑level need, but reiterated interest in supporting a program that helps schools use that information strategically at the site level. The secretary also flagged growth in universal school‑meal participation and a need to cover related costs.

Next steps and timing Committee members were told presenters will return for further discussion Friday. Lawmakers repeatedly requested more detail on school‑level effects and the department said it can produce data showing the schools that would generate additional funds under the family income index.

Ending The session closed with committee members thanking presenters for the detailed comparisons; staff said the budget volumes and technical worksheets will remain the basis for follow‑up questions at the committee’s next meeting.