District budget briefing: state funding formula changes could leave Kershaw short on mandated salary increases

District finance staff told the Kershaw County School Board of Trustees that changes in the state’s school funding formula and charter school weightings have reduced the district’s relative share of state aid at a time when the legislature is requiring salary schedule increases.

Mister Willard summarized the funding formula shift from the older EFA approach to a proportionate share model that now pools charter and traditional public schools into one allocation. He explained that, under the current weightings, some charter schools receive significantly higher weight per pupil because they cannot levy local taxes; the brick‑and‑mortar charter weighting in the presentation was described as 1.25 above the district base (a total factor of 2.25 for those enrollments). Willard said the result can be paradoxical: “We could gain students, but lose funding,” he said, describing how district growth does not guarantee a larger share of the statewide pot.

Willard and Dr. Goodwin told the board they had tracked several budget line items tied to pending state action. Key figures presented by administration included:

- $2.2 million — projected cost to implement mandated increases tied to the state minimum teacher salary schedule and a required one‑step increase for certain classifications (guidance, media, nurses, psychologists, OTs, PTs and similar positions). Willard noted that the $2.2 million figure includes fringe costs.

- $160,000 — projected cost to increase bus driver salary schedules in line with state employee increases and step adjustments.

- $875,000 — a rough projection for district cost if the Senate’s proposed 4.6% employer health insurance increase is funded at the employer level; Willard emphasized the district was awaiting final legislative figures.

- $956,000 — projected cost for salary schedule upgrades the district has been studying; the administration said the figure is slightly lower than earlier projections after enrollment and days‑worked adjustments.

- $200,000 — approximate cost to provide a 2% cost‑of‑living adjustment for nonmandated employee groups, if the board chose to propose that in the 2025–26 budget.

Willard said the district’s current Ways and Means–based revenue projection shows a net revenue increase of a little more than $2.2 million above the current year, but that amount roughly matches the single mandated salary schedule item and, after fringe and accounting, leaves only about $1.7 million available in the aid lines used to implement that mandate. “Not a good situation,” he said, adding that the district expects limited upside from the Senate amendment that trimmed virtual charter weight by about 20 basis points and that the budget work will likely proceed to a conference committee in the legislature.

Board members asked how cost‑of‑living and step increases would be funded. A board member asked, “Whose responsibility is the cost of living?” Willard replied that local cost‑of‑living adjustments would be funded locally — through local tax dollars, available fund balance, or any state excess aid if it occurred — and that the state has not committed to covering step increases for teachers.

Administration told the board it plans to present the first reading of the 2025–26 budget at the May 20 meeting and a second reading on June 4, contingent on legislative timing. Willard also urged board members to watch for a webinar hosted by statewide education associations that will explain the funding changes and next steps.