Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance Survey topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force reviews 50-state survey of K-12 funding models, special-education approaches
Summary
Legislative staff presented a 50-state survey of K–12 school finance models and described the range of mechanisms states use for special-education funding, including student-based weights, resource- and reimbursement-based approaches, categorical funds and high-cost reimbursement programs.
Jennifer Light of the Legislative Research Department presented a 50-state survey of K–12 funding models and how states fund special education, telling the task force the memo reflects state systems as of March 20, 2024.
The presentation outlined primary funding models used nationwide: student-based formulas that provide a base per pupil and add weights for needs; resource-based models that calculate the cost of required staffing and services; hybrid models; and locally set systems (noted for Vermont and Wisconsin). Light told the committee 34 states used a student-based model, nine used resource-based models and four used hybrids; two states rely on local voter-approved property tax decisions.
The memo defined common funding mechanisms—single weights, multiple weights, categorical funds outside the primary model, census-based allocations, high-cost service reimbursements, resource allocation of staffing, and hybrids. For special education, Light said Kansas currently uses a reimbursement model based on district expenditures; only three other states (Michigan, Nebraska and Wyoming) use a similar reimbursement structure. The most common national approach is hybrid mechanisms (27 states, including Colorado), which can combine weights, categorical allocations and census or resource elements. Other approaches include multiple weights (9 states plus DC) and single weights (4 states). Two states use high-cost service mechanisms; Colorado’s model includes an appropriated amount calculated as 4.5 times district expenditures per pupil in that category.
Committee members asked for clarifications about several states’ approaches—how Mississippi’s three-tiered system translates to funding amounts, whether some models represent separate “pots” of money, and how “base amounts” function in student-based vs resource-based systems. Light and staff said they would follow up with state-specific examples and numerical illustrations. Elena Rutter of Legislative Research clarified that Rhode Island’s high-cost approach is targeted to students with extremely high costs rather than increasing funding for all special-education students.
The session ended with staff promising supplemental examples: per-pupil calculations under each model, district examples showing how property valuation affects state aid, and follow-up explanations for points the presenters did not have on hand.
