Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative staff brief lawmakers on Montana school funding formula, GTB and gaps
Summary
Legislative Fiscal Division and Research Office staff gave the House Education Committee an abbreviated training on Montana’s school funding formula, the constitutional bases for equality and equity, and the guaranteed tax base (GTB) equalization mechanism, noting a roughly $1.1 billion general fund and a significant state–local funding gap.
Julia Patton of the Legislative Fiscal Division and Pat McCracken, deputy research director, told the House Education Committee that Montana’s school funding rests on constitutional language in Article X guaranteeing equality of educational opportunity and on a statutory funding formula (20-9-309, MCA) that the legislature alone can change.
The presenters framed the formula as two halves: the lines that define district budget limits (a base and a maximum) and the mechanisms that fill the bucket. Pat McCracken described five fully state‑funded components—quality educator payment, at‑risk payment, Data for Achievement, Indian Education for All, and the American Indian achievement gap payment—and noted additional components, including special education, that create differences between the base and maximum limits.
McCracken said the school district general fund is the system’s largest piece—about $1.1 billion statewide—and emphasized the guaranteed tax base (GTB) as the primary equalizing mechanism that responds to wide variations in local property‑tax wealth across roughly 400 districts. He explained that the state provides 44.7 percent of the entitlement amounts for key components, which creates a gap that districts fill with a mix of fund balance, non‑levy revenue and a blend of property taxes and GTB aid.
The presenters used a ‘bucket’ metaphor and a Microsoft Power BI tool to illustrate differences among districts. They contrasted Ennis (higher taxable value) with Superior (much lower taxable value): the tool showed Ennis with roughly $330 million in taxable value and Superior about $7 million, producing vastly different local mill levies even when state GTB aid is applied. McCracken used the example to show how GTB reduces the number of mills smaller districts must impose to generate similar revenue.
Committee members asked technical questions about who controls the GTB line and how inflation adjustments (as proposed in HB15) are applied to components. The presenters confirmed the legislature determines the formula and that inflationary adjustments—such as those proposed in HB15—raise the lines on the bucket, which increases state and local dollar amounts. The session closed with a commitment to a follow‑up training to cover remaining technical details and the interaction with property tax proposals.
