Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the High Enrollment Weighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
High-enrollment weighting: history, models and who stands to gain or lose
Summary
The task force reviewed the history of the high-enrollment weighting, staff modeling of alternatives and who would be affected. Staff said 55 districts have at least 1,600 FTE; high-enrollment districts account for most of the state's at-risk weighting.
Nick Myers and KLRD staff presented the history and mechanics of the high-enrollment weighting and several alternate models for the Education Funding Task Force.
What it is: Nick said the high-enrollment weighting "applies to school districts with an enrollment of at least 1,622 FTE students," and that the current statutory factor is roughly a 3.5% multiplier for any district above the threshold. He traced the weighting's origin to the mid-1990s school finance changes and noted it has been amended several times (including a repeal/re-enactment in 2006 during the post-Montoya adjustments).
Modeling and immediate results: KLRD and Legislative staff ran multiple scenarios: - Remove the high-enrollment weighting entirely (no other changes). In that run staff reported a net reduction in state foundation aid of about $63.8 million and a total combined state+computed LOB reduction of roughly $85.0 million (about 1.75% statewide). - Remove the weighting but roll the same aggregate dollars into the base; staff divided the put-back money across FTE and the illustrative base rose from $5,378 to about $5,477 in one run. - Raise the threshold (move the start above 1,900) or revert to the 1996 multiplier; each option reduces the number of districts receiving the weighting and changes the distribution of funds. - A scenario moving the weighting to apply only at very large districts (10,000+) would concentrate the aid to those largest districts and remove aid from many currently eligible districts.
Staff numbers and distribution: Matthew Willis told the group, "There are 55 school districts that have over 1,600 FTE of enrollment." He added those 55 districts account for 76% of the state's at-risk weighting (71,944.7 FTE in the model run). Staff showed that some large districts would lose millions of dollars if the weighting were removed, while many small districts would gain when the same money is put into base aid because of the low-enrollment interactions.
Policy trade-offs discussed: Dr. Frank Harwood and others noted there are multiple ways to neutralize winners and losers: one approach widely discussed was eliminating the high-enrollment weighting but simultaneously reducing the low-enrollment weighting by the same aggregate amount before or when money is rolled into base. "If you eliminate high enrollment and then also reduce the low enrollment waiting by the same amount and then add it back to the base, you actually even out that differences," Dr. Harwood said. Committee members debated whether the preference should be to simplify the formula, to prioritize student outcomes, or to avoid litigation risk.
Ending: Staff will provide combined runs that change both high- and low-enrollment parameters together (hold-harmless or phased scenarios) and additional district-level tables so the task force can quantify distributional effects before recommending statutory changes.
