Department of Education: regional-index correction would raise EPS costs by about $70 million
Loading...
Summary
Department presenters told the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee that updating the EPS regional index to a minimum-salary floor and county cost-of-living groupings would increase the formula's total allocation by roughly $70 million, with an estimated $40 million state share and about $31 million local share.
The Department of Education told the Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs on March 7 that implementing a recommended regional-index correction to the Essential Programs and Services (EPS) funding formula would increase the formula's calculated cost by about $70,000,000.
Paula Gravel, director of public school funding at the department, said the recommended change would move the index from an average-salary basis to a minimum-salary basis with a floor of 1 and would use county-level cost-of-living groupings in place of labor-market areas that have not been updated since 2005. "This is the result of the update that was recommended," Gravel said, and added that most SAUs would see increased allocations because the floor prevents indices below 1.
Why it matters: Gravel told the committee the higher total cost would be split under the state's current EPS share formula: roughly $40 million of the increase would be the state's share and about $31 million the local share. She cautioned that FY27 funding has already been distributed to districts and that any change would be most practical starting in FY28 in order to avoid disrupting current budgets.
Committee members pressed for details about who would gain or lose under the change. Gravel said most school administrative units would benefit from the regional-index correction but that a small number would see decreases; she identified Skowhegan's labor-market area as a notable outlier in prior simulations because its historic index no longer reflects current local pay levels. "There are very few red, which would indicate lower total cost," Gravel said while pointing to the department's spreadsheets.
What's next: The department provided the committee with multi-page spreadsheets showing SAU-level changes and statewide totals and said it would prepare additional comparisons if the committee requested them. The committee scheduled further work sessions and signaled it wants a clear mapping between these scenarios and the language in LD 3 18 and related bill drafts before a public hearing.
Ending: The committee did not take any formal votes; members asked for follow-up materials and additional comparisons for specific districts before advancing any statutory language or appropriation proposals.
