Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Fulham offers amendment to H955 to suspend excess-spending penalty, citing misapplied student weights
Summary
Representative Fulham told the Ways & Means Committee that misapplied student weighting has shifted costs and produced unfair excess-spending penalties; she proposed an amendment to H955 to suspend the penalty for the 2028 and 2029 school years while data and formulas are corrected. The committee did not vote and will take additional testimony when S220 arrives in the yield bill.
Representative Fulham introduced an amendment to H955 in the Ways & Means Committee asking the panel to suspend the state's excess-spending penalty for the 2028 and 2029 school years, saying a confirmed error in how student weights were applied has shifted costs between districts and made the penalty unfair.
Fulham told the committee she pursued the amendment for three reasons: confirmation from analysts that weights were applied incorrectly, evidence in Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) data that the misapplication changes which districts are flagged for penalties, and direct appeals from local school boards struggling to explain rising costs. "Applying penalties to a formula that has errors is likely layering error on top of error," she said.
She described several concrete distortions the JFO analysis identified: some small tuitioning districts reportedly receive proportionally more weight than nearby operating districts, producing substantially lower weighted spending per pupil and removing incentives to merge; other districts with higher measured economic disadvantage can nonetheless appear less vulnerable to the penalty because of weighting differences. Fulham cited one tiny K—6 tuitioning district, Morgan, which she said sends students to Derby but receives more weight, resulting in roughly a 20% lower weighted spending figure than Derby. She said those disparities can shift tax burdens and affect which districts pay the penalty.
Fulham also warned that institutions classified in the transcript as "TA" or the academy could react to the penalty by changing enrollment policies, reducing staff licensing requirements, or relying on private fundraising to lower tuition for sending districts. She said those strategies would reduce tax liability for some towns but risked narrowing access for disadvantaged students and undermining the system's goal of equitable access.
The amendment as described in committee would temporarily suspend the enforcement of the excess-spending penalty while the weighting error is corrected; Fulham framed this as a limited pause to avoid further harm. She said the proposal aims to protect districts that are currently penalized because of the mistake while the legislature examines the technical fixes.
A member who identified himself by his first name, Jim, spoke in personal support of the pause and urged a two-year grace period to let taxpayers and districts adjust. The committee chair noted the related bill S220 had been placed into the yield bill by the Senate Finance Committee the previous night and said the yield-bill process will require substantial testimony and analysis before any final change to the penalty is adopted. "We're going to have a lot of time to discuss the excess spending penalty and get significant analysis and take significant testimony about what it would mean to remove it," the chair said.
No formal vote on the Fulham amendment was recorded during the session; members debated whether to postpone further action so the yield-bill process could address the broader policy questions. One member said they planned to vote against the amendment. The committee took a break and signaled that more detailed consideration of S220 and the excess-spending penalty will follow in the yield-bill process.
Why this matters: The excess-spending penalty functions as a fiscal control and benchmark for districts. Fulham argued that penalties applied to a calculation with an acknowledged error risk producing unequal outcomes and perverse incentives, including reduced access for disadvantaged students. The committee will accept more testimony when S220 appears in the yield bill.
Sources: Committee discussion and member remarks in the Ways & Means Committee session; JFO analysis referenced by Representative Fulham.
Next steps: The committee did not vote on the amendment; members said they will revisit the policy when S220 is considered in the yield bill and will gather additional testimony and data from affected districts.
