Committee reviews 5% reduction scenarios across Minimum School Programs
Loading...
Summary
Legislative fiscal analysts outlined candidate 5% reductions affecting the Basic School Program and 22 categorical programs; USBE proposed many reductions be treated as one‑year pauses to allow deeper review and minimize permanent impacts to staffing and services.
The subcommittee spent substantial time reviewing recommended reductions across the Minimum School Program (MSP). LFA analyst Rochelle Gunderson summarized the Basic School Program ($4.24 billion) and the structure of 16 primary and 10 secondary WPU‑driven and categorical programs, then outlined candidate reductions intended to meet a 5% budget target.
Candidates included moderation of nonlapsing balances for several categorical grants, a one‑year reversal of a Public Education Economic Stabilization deposit, targeted reductions in adult education and student counseling supports, and an adjustment to the educator salary supplement inflationary assumption (from a 4% WPU inflationary rate to a 3% core inflationary rate, which would require statute change to implement).
Committee members probed why some programs showed growing closing balances even while districts report local shortfalls; staff explained that eligibility criteria and application processes can prevent full disbursement, creating carryforward balances. Lawmakers asked specifically about the flexible allocation (a consolidated stream that now includes professional staff funding), pupil transportation (staff said the program historically funds a mid‑70s percentage of transportation costs and a 10% reduction would cut the state’s portion), and charter‑specific funding that the LFA proposed to eliminate.
USBE officials, including Deputy Superintendent Scott Jones, provided comparative impacts between the LFA’s recommendations and the state board’s preference for time‑limited reductions. USBE said the board’s approach—Plan 2—would make many reductions for one fiscal year only (FY27) to allow a deeper program review and minimize lasting personnel impacts; staff cautioned, however, that taking ongoing reductions without statutory changes is binding and would be difficult to restore without later legislative action.
The committee also heard updates on capital programs (rural school sports facilities and small district capital projects); USBE reported recent awards and noted unmet requests that substantially exceed current appropriations. The MSP discussion remained unresolved in the provided transcript as members continued to weigh ongoing versus one‑time reductions.
