The Select Committee on School Finance heard an evidence‑based recalibration presentation recommending that Wyoming adopt a 15:1 pupil–teacher ratio for kindergarten through third grade and 25:1 for grades four through 12.

The consultant leading the presentation, Doctor Pikes, told the committee he ran simulations comparing the state’s current ratios (historically 16:1 for K–3 and 21:1 for higher grades in the MAP model) with the evidence‑based model and several alternate grade‑band scenarios. “Please consider all of the numbers here to be estimates,” he said, cautioning the committee that the team would refine simulations and provide updated figures at future meetings.

The recalibration materials showed that adopting the evidence‑based 15/25 ratios statewide would reduce state funding needs by about $68,000,000 and lower the financed full‑time equivalent (FTE) allocation by roughly 754 core teachers. By contrast, changing only elementary ratios from 16 to 15 while leaving secondary ratios unchanged would increase staffing costs: the consultant’s model estimated that option would add roughly $12,630,000 and about 140 teaching positions.

Committee members and staff discussed presentation details, noting some labeling inconsistencies in the slides and asking for clarified model runs. Doctor Pikes said simulations were built using the state’s funding model and that state staff (including Matt Wilmarth) provided data and dashboards; he offered to verify and re‑circulate precise outputs before the next meeting. “When we first bid to do this work we proposed that the capacity to use the model and run the model would be left with the state,” he said, explaining why the team used the state model for cost comparisons.

The evidence‑based model also recommends percentages of elective/specialist staffing intended to give teachers planning time: 20% for elementary and middle schools and one‑third (33.33%) for high schools. The presentation noted Wyoming’s statute and prior practice set similar but not identical values (Wyoming’s model historically used 33% for middle and high school). Moving to the evidence‑based elective/specialist percentages would reduce costs by about $9,500,000 and reduce roughly 1,304 elective specialist positions in the first round of estimates.

The presenter repeatedly emphasized the dynamic nature of the model: changes in one component (for example, pupil–teacher ratios or special‑education weights) alter other allocations, including elective staffing and at‑risk resources. Committee members asked for more precise breakdowns, and staff agreed to provide corrected simulations and documentation of assumptions for the October or January follow‑up.

The committee did not vote on any statutory change. Members instructed staff to refine the simulations and return with corrected tables and model files. Doctor Pikes said the team would “open up the model and check that and give it to you” and would supply corrected spreadsheets to the committee.