TISA review committee gets primer on Tennessee school‑funding formula and fiscal capacity; allows recordings as minutes

The State Board of Education’s TISA review committee convened its first meeting and heard a detailed overview of Tennessee’s new school‑funding formula, TISA, including how base funding, weighted adjustments and fiscal capacity determine local and state shares of education dollars.

Chair Bob Eby, who leads the committee, opened the meeting and asked staff to confirm attendance and procedures. The members then approved a procedural motion allowing recorded committee sessions to stand as the official minutes for the year; the motion passed by roll call with all recorded members voting yes.

The central presentation came from Mary Ann Dursky, chief financial officer for the Tennessee Department of Education, and Karen Burkholder, TDOE director of strategy, who laid out TISA’s pyramid of base, weighted and direct funding and the outcomes layer that awards student‑level performance bonuses. Dursky said the state is investing $125,000,000 to raise minimum teacher pay and that, "as of July 1, every teacher in the state will make at least $50,000." She also noted the base per‑pupil amount used in the formula for the coming year, stating on the slide that the base would be $7,530.

The presenters described how weighted funding supplements the base for students with additional needs — for example, concentrated poverty, students with disabilities and English learners — and explained the unique‑learning‑needs (ULN) categories that assign weights from 15% to 150% of the base depending on intensity of services. Karen Burkholder said direct funding lines — K‑3 literacy, career and technical education, charter supports and others — are 100% state funded and do not carry a local contribution requirement.

Dursky also explained an ED (economically disadvantaged) ‘‘hold harmless’’ provision planned for FY27: districts will generate TISA funds to cover 100% of the gap between 2026 actual ED ADM and the funded ED ADM from 2024‑25, so districts that saw a drop in funded ED counts would not see immediate loss of that component of funding.

Todd Madison, deputy general counsel for the State Board of Education, reviewed the legal framework that governs the committee’s work. "The Open Meetings Act requires that public policy in the state of Tennessee is public business and shall not be conducted in secret," Madison said, summarizing the Sunshine Law and reminding members that the Public Records Act generally covers records they create while performing committee duties. He emphasized requirements for public notice and limits on deliberating official business by email or in shared documents.

On fiscal capacity, Dr. Cliff Lippert of the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations explained that TISA uses an average of two models — TASER (a regression‑based model) and CBER (an algebraic model) — to estimate each county’s ability to raise local revenue. Lippert listed the primary inputs used in those calculations: own‑source revenue per student, sales tax base per student, equalized property assessment per student, per‑capita income and a service‑responsibility measure. He said the models use three‑year averages to smooth volatility and noted several potential refinements under consideration, such as replacing outdated tax‑equivalency payment data and reconsidering the service‑responsibility factor.

Committee members pressed for clarity on how a county’s fiscal capacity can change due to statewide shifts even if local conditions remain stable, and how such index changes interact with maintenance‑of‑effort rules. Lippert and Dursky said the overall allocation to a district generally does not change because of fiscal capacity revisions; rather, the state‑versus‑local split shifts, and TDOE provides projections to help districts anticipate changes.

Presenters also described support provisions designed to protect districts during transitions: fast‑growth stipends (districts with allocation increases over 1.25%), infrastructure stipends for sustained three‑year growth, a funding floor for districts whose new allocations and non‑virtual ADM decline, BEP transition funding for early TISA losers and a 5% safety net that guarantees districts at least 95% of prior‑year allocations when year‑to‑year drops exceed 5%.

Staff said they will circulate a survey this summer for members to submit the committee’s top five priorities; fiscal cost estimates and an aggregated priority letter will be prepared for the governor and relevant legislative committees. The committee plans to meet roughly four times this year, mostly in electronic format, and to address House Bill 2485’s requirement to review how economically disadvantaged students are identified and funded in other states.

The meeting closed after the presenters agreed to share the slide deck and other resources, and the chair adjourned the session.