RFA urges math fixes, clearer reporting in State Aid to Classrooms; lawmakers hear support from school leaders

Frank Rainwater, presenting RFAs review of Proviso 1.3, told a House Ways and Means subcommittee that the 2023 shift to a "State Aid to Classrooms" approach requires technical adjustments to ensure dollars flow as intended. "This is not about changing the game plan, this is about executing the game plan you have," Rainwater said, opening a review of the formulas assumptions and a set of practical recommendations.

RFA told lawmakers the formula targets funding to support an average 11.2-to-1 instructional position ratio and that the agency used an estimated teacher cost (salary plus fringe) of roughly $75,891 per position to calculate the pot of money backing that target. Rainwater said RFA found a substantive mismatch between funded positions and actual hires: the formula funded about 73,368 instructional positions, while districts reported hiring roughly 57,930 positions in fiscal 25, a gap of about 15,000 positions that districts can spend flexibly on aides or salary increases.

The review focused on how student classification and add-on weights allocate the state pot. RFA highlighted wide district-to-district variation in several weightsfor example, disability-weighted students ranged in some districts from roughly 7% to over 20% of enrollment. Rainwater said that complexity and inconsistent reporting can short-change some districts and recommended clearer definitions and guidance for how districts classify students.

RFAs key recommendations were: consolidate a set of small add-on weights (limited English proficiency, gifted and talented, academic assistance) into a modestly higher base K2-12 weight to reduce reporting burden; separate non-instructional components (charter brick-and-mortar and virtual weightings and a CTE equipment component) from teacher-salary funding so those dollars do not compete in the same proportional pot; include health insurance costs in the formula (RFA estimated an additional roughly $11,000 per teacher would capture average insurance expense); and, for budget certainty, allocate most funding based on prior-year student counts rather than on in-year counts.

"Use last year student count to allocate next year's money," Rainwater told the committee, arguing that adopting prior-year counts would give districts reliable figures for budgeting and staffing. RFA proposed setting aside approximately $48,000,000 as a hold-harmless pot to limit disruptive changes during any transition to a new math while leaving policy choices about duration and scope to the legislature.

Representatives of local education groups generally supported the recommendations. "Our funding concerns are not about traditional public school districts versus charter schools," Debbie Elmore of the South Carolina School Boards Association said. "It has to do with the fact that we are all public schools." Ryan Bailey of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators urged separating charter supplemental weightings from the main formula, saying that separation better aligns formula funding with teacher headcount while preserving funds for charter non-instructional needs. "This is recognition that the State Aid to Classrooms funding formula is designed to cover core K-12 instructional costs for both traditional and charter schools, explicitly teacher salaries," Bailey said.

Committee members asked data and audit questions, including whether RFA could detect over- or under-identification of students for particular weights and how fast-growing districts would be handled if allocations used prior-year counts. Rainwater acknowledged data limitations (some needed detail is embedded in IEPs and local records) and suggested targeted pots for rapid-growth districts or limited flexibility to account for charter openings.

Procedural business followed. Staff reviewed proviso tabs and amended language; Representative Collins moved to give staff authority to make technical changes necessary to conform proviso language, the subcommittee approved the motion by voice vote, and the meeting was adjourned. The RFA full report and district-level tables are available on RFAs website for legislators and district finance officers to review.

Next steps noted by lawmakers included decisions about hold-harmless duration, whether to collapse certain weights, and how to handle fast-growing charter districts; the legislature will consider RFAs technical recommendations alongside policy choices in the budget process.