HB 2078: State Funding Formula
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HB 2078: State Funding Formula ACTION: Ask your representative to vote NO on HB 2078 BILL: HB 2078 by Rep. Kyle Hilbert, R-Depew WHEN IT WILL BE HEARD: HB 2078 is eligible to be heard on the House floor at any time. WHAT IT WOULD DO: HB 2078 would change the basis for state aid funding. Instead of using the highest weighted average daily membership from the current year or two prior years, districts could only use the highest weighted average daily membership from the current year or prior year. REASONS FOR OPPOSITION: We've created a Myths & Facts document to help understand the effect of this bill. You may download it here. In addition, there are a number of reasons to oppose this bill. It: • Destabilizes school budgets. o School budgets shift with economic conditions, which has often led to significant budget reductions. The multi-year look at enrollment is a budget stabilization mechanism. If a school experiences a single-year enrollment decline, districts aren’t forced to immediately cut employees, eliminate programs or reduce services to students. If the decline is a trend rather than temporary, the multi-year look allows districts time to plan for strategic reductions to minimize the harm to students. • Exacerbates the teacher shortage. o Personnel costs accounts for the largest portion of a school district budget. Enrollment declines don’t always reduce staffing needs, but districts could be forced to cut teachers and staff without enough time to plan for strategic 1 reductions. This could exacerbate the teacher shortage, particularly in rural and urban areas. • Discourages and jeopardizes educational innovation. o Local education leaders need stable budgets to plan for, adopt and implement innovative educational programs. It takes time and resources to begin, nurture and grow new programs. That will become more difficult with less budget certainty and time to plan. • Punishes students in declining-enrollment districts. o Most declining enrollment districts are in rural areas that are the victim of shifting demographics and population trends. Families follow jobs and economic opportunity. Destabilizing budgets unnecessarily punishes the students still attending these districts by leaving them with fewer resources. • Is being rushed forward even though legislators have not fully considered the negative ramifications. o Of the many school funding formula legislative studies over the years, none have suggested this change. The 10 most recent recommendations from 2019 include simplifying the formula, providing more support for districts that serve high-need students by increasing funding for students from poverty and English learners while not reducing funding for other districts. The proposed change has not been fully vetted and pursuing it in one of the most turbulent years schools have experienced is bad policy. ACTION: Ask your representative to vote NO on HB 2078 2 HB 2078: State Funding Formula Myths & Facts Myth: Oklahoma is funding “ghost” students. Fact: Every penny provided to Oklahoma’s schools benefits real students. The formula provision allowing schools to choose the highest enrollment of the current year or previous two years is a budget stabilization mechanism. Many states have similar “hold harmless” provisions in their school funding formula to protect against short-term enrollment fluctuations and to protect students from harmful cuts to teacher staffing, academics and services. Myth: This proposed change in the funding formula would benefit all Oklahoma students. Fact: The hundreds of thousands of students who attend declining enrollment schools will be left behind by the proposed change because of its budget-destabilizing effect. Over the last five years, a majority of Oklahoma schools have faced at least a one-year enrollment decline and relied on the existing multi-year formula to stabilize funding. Myth: Schools are doing a poor job of serving students and that’s why enrollment in schools is on the decline. Fact: The vast majority of declining enrollment schools are in rural Oklahoma. Families are following economic opportunity and jobs to more densely populated areas and punishing these students and their schools for demographic and population shifts is bad policy. Myth: This bill is good because Epic charter schools would be the biggest “loser.” Fact: If the proposed change had been in effect this year, Epic would have received an additional $3.4 million. Existing state law already requires virtual charter schools to use current-year enrollment as the basis for funding if there’s a 15% decline in enrollment. In fact, the hundreds of thousands of students in districts with declining enrollment have the most to lose. 1 Myth: With this change, schools will have more money to spend. Fact: This bill adds no money to the education budget, which is the only way to increase per- student spending. Shifting money from one district to another means some students always end up with less. That’s why conversations about improving the formula always focus on ensuring no students suffer harm. The current formula ensures more money follows students who change districts while also ensuring short-term budget stability for the benefit of all students. In a state that remains last in the region in per-student spending, we should not make funding changes that creates winners and losers. Myth: Oklahoma is unique in providing a multi-year funding stabilization mechanism. Fact: Many states provide a multi-year count to help declining enrollment schools have continuity in funding. Some provide far more than two years -- Colorado provides up to a 5-year rolling average to ensure their school districts have more certainty in multi-year budgeting plans. Myth: The $900 million in combined carryover/emergency funds for all school districts is excessive and will offset losses resulting from changes to the state aid formula. Fact: School carryover/emergency funds are similar to the state’s $1.2 billion Rainy Day and Revenue Stabilization funds. Just like the state, school districts must have funds available to offset reductions in local or state revenue. They also must have additional funds to cover payroll and operations for July and August when they receive very little state aid. Schools also receive no ad valorem funding until December. The state’s carryover is about 17% percent of the general revenue fund while the combined carryover/emergency fund of school districts is 13.6%. Raising or removing the carryover limit doesn’t help current students. Myth: Parents want this funding formula change. Fact: Parents want well-funded schools with great teachers and outstanding educational opportunities for their children. This bill maintains the status quo of poor funding for all schools and further shortchanges children in declining enrollment schools. That’s not what parents want. 2 HOUSE DISTRICTS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT (2021) House District School District Representative Phone Email 19 Achille Justin Humphrey 405.557.7382 [email protected] 21 Achille Dustin Roberts 405.557.7366 [email protected] 25 Ada Ronny Johns 405.557.7336 [email protected] 5 Adair Josh West 405.557.7415 [email protected] 6 Adair Rusty Cornwell 405.557.7319 [email protected] 5 Afton Josh West 405.557.7415 [email protected] 6 Afton Rusty Cornwell 405.557.7319 [email protected] 7 Afton Steve Bashore 405.557.7399 [email protected] 32 Agra Kevin Wallace 405.557.7368 [email protected] 17 Albion Jim Grego 405.557.7381 [email protected] 19 Albion Justin Humphrey 405.557.7382 [email protected] 42 Alex Cynthia Roe 405.557.7365 [email protected] 51 Alex Brad Boles 405.557.7405 [email protected] 58 Aline-Cleo Carl Newton 405.557.7339 [email protected] 18 Allen David Smith 405.557.7376 [email protected] 24 Allen Logan Phillips 405.557.7306 [email protected] 25 Allen Ronny Johns 405.557.7336 [email protected] 29 Allen-Bowden Kyle Hilbert 405.557.7353 [email protected] 52 Altus Gerrid Kendrix 405.557.7369 [email protected] 58 Alva Carl Newton 405.557.7339 [email protected] 47 Amber-Pocasset Brian Hill 405.557.7333 [email protected] 51 Amber-Pocasset Brad Boles 405.557.7405 [email protected] 56 Amber-Pocasset Dick Lowe 405.557.7401 [email protected] 56 Anadarko Dick Lowe 405.557.7401 [email protected] 65 Anadarko Toni Hasenbeck 405.557.7305 [email protected] 36 Anderson Sean Roberts 405.557.7322 [email protected] 66 Anderson Jadine Nollan 405.557.7390 [email protected] 19 Antlers Justin Humphrey 405.557.7382 [email protected] 57 Arapaho Anthony Moore 405.557.7325 [email protected] 48 Ardmore Tammy Townley 405.557.7326 [email protected] 3 Arkoma Rick West 405.557.7413 [email protected] 59 Arnett Mike Dobrinski 405.557.7407 [email protected] 61 Arnett Kenton Patzkowsky 405.557.7384 [email protected] 20 Asher Sherrie Conley 405.557.7308 [email protected] 25 Asher Ronny Johns 405.557.7336 [email protected] 27 Asher Danny Sterling 405.557.7349 [email protected] 18 Atoka David Smith 405.557.7376 [email protected] 19 Atoka Justin Humphrey 405.557.7382 [email protected] 22 Atoka Charles McCall 405.557.7412 [email protected] 10 Avant Judd Strom 405.557.7402 [email protected] 36 Avant Sean Roberts 405.557.7322 [email protected] 61 Balko Kenton Patzkowsky 405.557.7384 [email protected]