Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Iowa School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Iowa’s layered foundation and supplement model detailed; special education and sharing weightings explained
Summary
Legislative research staff summarized Iowa’s State School Foundation Program, a student-based model with a combined foundation base per pupil, a separate combined district cost per pupil, and multiple supplements and weightings for special education, ELL, concurrent enrollment and sharing arrangements.
Alana (Elena) Rudder of Legislative Research presented Iowa’s school finance structure and described a complex set of foundation-base calculations, supplements and weightings.
Iowa’s State School Foundation Program uses a series of formulas to compute a combined foundation base per pupil (the sum of multiple base/supplement elements) and a separate combined district cost per pupil; the school district’s foundation aid equals the lesser of those measures in the calculation. The presentation detailed how regular program base amounts (presenter cited $7,635 for FY24) are multiplied by statutory factors and combined with special-education support, teacher salary supplements, professional development and other supplements; many of these components are adjusted by a state percent-of-growth factor (2.5% in the cited budget year).
Rudder described Iowa’s special-education weightings (examples given: 1.8 for children who require adaptations while in a regular classroom; 2.2 for full-time self-contained placements; 4.2 for students with severe or multiple disabilities) and English-learner weightings (intensive 0.26, intermediate 0.21, with a five-year cap on inclusion in weighted enrollment). The memo also covered at-risk/alternative-school weightings, whole-grade-sharing and operational-sharing supplementary weightings, concurrent enrollment weightings (CTE 0.7; liberal arts 0.5), virtual delivery weightings (0.05) and reorganization incentives. Rudder noted a typographical error in one formula in the memo (an ESA reference that should be replaced), which staff will correct in the posted document.
Committee members asked how recent school-choice changes (e.g., ESA programs) interact with the formula; Rudder said that was not included in the summary and will be added later if relevant. Staff agreed to provide additional detail on shared services, concurrent enrollment weighting mechanics and other operational clarifications.
