Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School Boards Association warns funding formula favors charters, outlines 2026 legislative priorities
Summary
At a Nov. 18 Richland County board work session, Debbie Elmore of the South Carolina School Boards Association urged lawmakers to adjust student weightings and separate charter allocations after data showed substantially higher per‑pupil amounts for charter students; she also flagged health‑insurance, parental‑leave and curriculum items to watch in 2026.
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debbie Elmore, a legislative representative with the South Carolina School Boards Association, told the Richland County School Board on Nov. 18 that the top priority for the association heading into the 2026 legislative session is fixing what she described as inconsistencies in the new school funding formula.
"Of course, the big issue is the funding issue," Elmore said, summarizing the association's analysis of the formula implemented this year. She cited the RFA (Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office) report and handouts showing that in one year about $324,000,000 of new dollars were added to the formula and that a charter school student in that new pot was receiving around $1,700 while a traditional public‑school student received roughly $850 from the new money.
Elmore said the discrepancy stems from how the formula assigns weightings to different student types and from a proviso that, she said, effectively doubled some charter weightings by applying both brick‑and‑mortar and virtual weights to the same students. "That was also a big part of that," she said, arguing it produced volatility and shifted dollars away from many traditional districts.
To address the problem, the association is urging several changes the RFA has already been asked to examine: combine and simplify multiple weight categories to reduce sensitivity to district coding; consider removing charter allocations (virtual and brick‑and‑mortar) from the general pot and allocating them separately; and treat part of the career‑technical education weight (the 0.2 portion) as a line item for equipment to ensure small districts can afford costly equipment.
Elmore told board members the RFA report also recommends basing budgeted funding on the prior year's actual enrollment so districts would see more consistent estimates and less year‑to‑year revenue surprise. She said lawmakers have directed the RFA to look at the student weights and bring back recommendations to make funding more consistent.
Board members pressed for timing and practical effects. Elmore said the House budget is typically the first clear signal (she expected early March) and reiterated that even modest changes to weightings can shift money among districts. She cited an example in which an initial estimate left some rural districts with much lower projected revenue, forcing use of reserves or program cuts.
Beyond formula fixes, Elmore flagged several other items RSA will push or monitor in 2026: making state health‑plan participation consistent for elected officials (with legal and Medicare/PEBA complexities for retirees); paid parental‑leave proposals that expand state employee leave (described in the House bill as expanding paid leave from six to 12 weeks and co‑parent leave from two to four weeks) and could increase districts' costs where local policies allow combining annual and sick leave; a House bill expanding extracurricular participation and prorated funding for charter, homeschool and governor‑school students; expected immunization bills with narrow exemptions added last year; tort‑reform items; and proposals related to student discipline, third‑grade retention and early‑childhood funding.
Elmore also warned of a transparency question raised by an ethics commission ruling she cited: a private college that formed an authorizing entity for charter schools (she named Erskine) was found not to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act because the statute does not explicitly cover that entity, an outcome she said raises concerns given public money flows through such entities.
Procedural note: at the start of the work session, the board adopted the meeting agenda by voice vote after a motion by a board member and a second; the chair declared the motion adopted and no roll‑call was recorded.
The board received Elmore's handouts and asked staff to continue following RFA findings; Elmore said RSA will seek calls to lawmakers and advocate for the recommended fixes when the General Assembly reconvenes in January.

