Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Kozart outlines student‑based funding proposal modeled on Tennessee’s TISA, seeks committee review of base and weights
Summary
Representative Bruce Kozart presented a draft student‑based funding model that would move Arkansas to current‑year ADM, a base per‑student amount, student weights for needs (ED, EL, five special‑education tiers, dyslexia, gifted, sparsity) and outcome‑based incentives; committee oversight of base and weights would be part of the adequacy study.
Representative Bruce Kozart presented the committee with a draft framework for a redesigned K–12 funding model called the ‘Comprehensive Investment in Student Achievement,’ modeled on Tennessee’s TISA approach.
Under the proposal, funding would shift from prior‑year ADM to current‑year ADM and move toward a single per‑student funding stream composed of: a base per‑student amount to cover core needs; student weights that add percentage increments of the base to address additional needs (economically disadvantaged, English learners, dyslexia, gifted, rural/sparse districts and several tiers of special‑education needs); direct funding to support programs beyond class instruction (for example, CTE or extended learning); and an outcome funding pool to reward district and school performance on state‑defined measures.
Representative Kozart said the model would preserve many items currently in the foundation base but move a portion of current base funding into weights (for example, transportation and much of special‑education funding would be weighted rather than baked into the flat base). He noted that weights are expressed as percentages of the base and that the model would classify districts by size bands (very small to large) and sparsity metrics when allocating certain supplements. The proposal calls for the House and Senate education committees to review and recommend base amounts and weights during the biannual adequacy study.
Kozart emphasized the plan aims to (1) target dollars to the student level, (2) make funding more responsive to student characteristics and locality, and (3) create an incentives layer for performance outcomes. He said current‑year ADM would eliminate separate student‑growth funding streams.
Members asked for additional technical details about weight percentages, special‑education tiering and the proposed outcome metrics. Kozart said the plan is still in development and that he will travel to regional cooperative meetings to solicit feedback on local impacts. The presentation was informational; no vote was taken.
