A consultant presenting preliminary recalibration work told members of the Select Committee on School Finance on Aug. 25 that the committee’s adequacy model treats extended‑day programs, summer school and English‑language learner (ELL) services as distinct funding items with specific staffing and participation assumptions.

Doctor Pikes, the consultant leading the model presentation, told the committee the model assumes an extended‑day program operates “for 2 hours 5 days a week,” with districts assumed to staff one teacher for every 120 at‑risk students and to count half of the at‑risk population as participants for planning purposes. He said the math treats those two hours as roughly a quarter‑time teacher for participating students and layers in a materials allocation of about $65 per at‑risk student.

“The way the model eventually works out is it’s 1 teacher for every 120 at‑risk students,” Doctor Pikes said. “As we assume half of them will take part, they’ll be there for 2 hours, and that’s about a quarter time of a teacher’s time.”

Why it matters: the committee is preparing a revised adequacy model intended to show how much funding districts would need to deliver defined levels of services. The staffing and participation assumptions determine how many full‑time equivalents (FTEs) the model generates and therefore how much baseline revenue districts would receive for these programs.

Key model features and context

- Extended day: The model assumes a minimum of two hours per day, five days per week, with at least half the extended time devoted to academic work. Staffing is set at one teacher per 120 at‑risk students (counting half as participants), producing a roughly 0.25 FTE per participating teacher role; a per‑student material allocation of about $65 is included.

- Summer school: The model treats summer school as requiring a stronger academic program than short enrichment sessions, recommending a minimum of six weeks and four to five hours per day. Pikes said summer programs were assumed to have similar overall costs and staffing assumptions to extended day (one teacher per 120 at‑risk students), with additional daily lesson‑planning and grading duties distinguishing summer teachers from extended‑day tutors.

- English‑language learners (ELL): The consultant described a rule of thumb in the model of “1 for every 100 ELL students,” noting that in many Wyoming districts that produces only fractional FTEs. Pikes warned that the model does not capture short‑term, large influxes of newcomers — such events are better handled by time‑limited local responses. “We have not put that in the model,” he said, “but it is something…a welcome center would be expected to work with other social service agencies.” He added the consultant team estimated about $200,000 in materials costs if a welcome center were stood up for a temporary influx.

- Counting and monitoring: The consultant said the model uses an unduplicated approach: students eligible for free and reduced‑price lunch are counted in the at‑risk pool, and any ELLs not already in that group are added so a child counts only once for resource generation. On monitoring, Pikes noted the federal rules allow one transition year after students cross the ELL assessment threshold; Wyoming uses a two‑year monitoring window in some cases, meaning students who pass the ELL assessment can remain in monitoring for one or two additional years under state practice.

Questions and next steps

Committee members pressed for clarity on several operational points — for example, how the model treats districts with widely fluctuating ELL numbers and whether fractional positions in very small districts produce workable hires. Pikes and committee staff discussed plans for professional judgment panels (in‑person and online) to test and refine assumptions, with proposed in‑person panels in late September and early October and additional online panels as needed.

The consultant recommended field panels that include small rural districts to surface how fractional FTEs play out in practice. “For 20 years I’ve harbored this bucket list to actually spend a little more time traveling around the beautiful state of Wyoming,” Pikes told committee members as he discussed on‑the‑ground panel logistics.

Ending

The committee did not vote on funding levels or lock in assumptions during the session. Members directed staff and the consultant to continue refining participation and staffing assumptions and to use professional judgment panels to gather district input before the committee’s next meeting.