Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Small Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel input highlights funding “cliffs” for very small schools; consultants outline options to smooth allocations
Summary
Consultants summarized professional judgment panels with small‑school educators who described sharp funding cliffs at certain enrollment thresholds and urged smoothing. Amanda Brown compared Wyoming’s average‑daily‑membership approach with other states and found Wyoming’s method broadly consistent while noting the funding cliffs at 49–50 students.
Consultants reported results from two recent professional‑judgment panels focused on small‑school districts and discussed Wyoming’s student‑count methodology.
How Wyoming counts students: Amanda Brown told the committee Wyoming uses an average daily membership (ADM) method for membership counts across the full school year, and the funding system uses the “better of” approach—either a prior‑year count or a three‑year average, whichever is higher—to allocate resources. Brown said this approach is consistent with many other states that use membership and averaging and that Wyoming’s mechanics are not an outlier nationally.
Small‑school funding cliffs: participants in the small‑school panels said the current model creates sharp “cliffs” at specific enrollment thresholds. A notable example: a grade band with 49 students falls into a different staffing formula than one with 50 students, with staffing minimums and FTE allocations changing in ways that can create large marginal differences as a single pupil is added or removed. Panelists urged the committee to consider smoothing mechanisms to avoid a one‑student change triggering a large staffing or budget swing.
Other field observations: panelists raised staffing and recruitment challenges in remote communities, where a single teacher may be asked to teach multiple subjects, making fractional staffing and shared positions necessary. They asked for better access to instructional facilitation, technology support, and timely reimbursements (special education and transportation reimbursements can create cash‑flow pressure for small districts).
Consultant next steps and options: consultants said they would examine smoothing options and potential formula adjustments that could reduce cliffs while preserving equity and the committee’s objective of delivering consistent educational opportunity. They also highlighted that some small‑district problems—transportation distances, co‑located campuses, and reservation governance—create coordination questions that funding alone may not fully resolve.
Ending: The consultants will return with proposals to smooth the small‑school funding cliffs and with more analysis of the fiscal impacts of candidate approaches.
