Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Funding Adm topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State-authorized charters warn ADM funding rules could cut budgets as enrollment grows
Summary
State-authorized charter officials told the Select Committee that current ADM funding rules tied to host-district averages can leave growing charters underfunded; LSO analysts and finance staff described the formula and recalibration effects and estimated model ADM changes for specific schools.
State-authorized charter leaders told the Select Committee that Wyoming’s per-student funding calculations can leave expanding charters underfunded when the districts that host them are in enrollment decline.
Janine Bayesky, chair of the Wyoming Charter School Authorizing Board, said several charters are entering their fourth year and facing a funding cliff because their Average Daily Membership (ADM) calculations reference their host districts’ ADM. "We have one school that could likely lose about 30% of their budget," Bayesky warned, citing the way ADM is calculated for the fourth year of operation.
LSO and finance staff explained the mechanics in response. Matt Wilmarth said the charter ADM model is not new: charter schools' first three years use actual October counts for ADM, and the fourth-year funding is based on comparative prior-year averages. LSO analysts noted the legislature’s recalibration effort changed rolling averages (moving from a three-year rolling average toward a two-year basis), which can alter timing and amounts. In an LSO example for a Casper-area charter, the modeled ADM dropped from an enrollment of 367 to an ADM estimate of about 361 under the funding model, a shortfall that can translate into meaningful budget gaps.
Committee members and authorizers discussed possible legislative fixes, including decoupling state-authorized charter ADM selections from the host district’s ADM or allowing charters to select the greater of prior-period ADM measures. LSO staff characterized those as policy choices the legislature can make but noted the existing law and historical funding model were known to charter applicants when they opened.
Bayesky and authorizer staff also described practical startup costs that precede state funding—facility leases, legal expenses and community fundraising—underscoring the fiscal risk when model ADM understates actual enrollment during growth phases.
The committee deferred action and asked staff to include these mechanics in continued interim work so members can weigh statutory options.
