Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department of Education outlines TISA formula, base funding and student weights
Summary
The Department of Education presented a primer on the TISA funding formula to the Senate Education Committee, reviewing the $7,295 base per student and weighted multipliers for economically disadvantaged students, concentrated-poverty schools, small and sparse districts, and students with unique learning needs.
Chairman White opened the Senate Education Committee and invited Department of Education staff to present on components of the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) funding formula. Emily Cornute, director of legislative affairs, introduced the presentation; Mary Ann Dursky, chief financial officer, gave the detailed overview.
Dursky explained that the TISA formula is built as a pyramid: base funding, weights, direct funding and outcomes funding. "That percentage times the base funding amount of $7,295 this year, gives you the additional weighted funding for each of the characteristics," she said, describing how weights multiply the base to deliver extra resources. Dursky said weights cover economically disadvantaged students, concentrated-poverty schools, small and sparse districts and students with unique learning needs (disabilities, English learners, dyslexia).
She provided specifics: small-district status applies to districts with 1,000 or fewer students (22 districts qualify this year) and sparse districts are those with fewer than 25 students per square mile (83 districts qualify). Each of those weights generates an additional allocation equal to 5% of the base per eligible student. For students identified as economically disadvantaged via direct certification, the weighted allocation is 25% of the base. Dursky also noted unique-learning-need weights range broadly (15%–150% of the base) to reflect differing levels of required support.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about overlap between categories (for example, whether a student can qualify for both concentrated-poverty and economically disadvantaged), and Dursky confirmed overlap is possible and common. The presentation set the baseline for subsequent discussion about hold-harmless provisions, growth stipends and other supports.
The committee did not take formal action on the presentation; members requested data analyses and district-level breakdowns requested later in the meeting.
