Education Commission of the States briefs committee on K funding models and trends

Madeline Creek, Arkansas state liaison for the nonpartisan Education Commission of the States (ECS), and Chris Duncombe, ECS senior policy analyst, presented a 50-state review of K funding models and legislative trends.

Duncombe said states split K funding between state and local sources but that Arkansas is a "higher effort state," shouldering roughly 51% of the state share while per-pupil spending remains below the national average (figures presented on slides were not cost-of-living adjusted). He described three primary funding approaches: student-based formulas that set a base per-student amount and add weights, resource-based formulas anchored to staffing matrices, and hybrids that combine elements of both. "We identified a trend toward student based funding models," Duncombe said, and noted Tennessee's transition to the Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) Act as a recent example.

Duncombe described variation in supplemental funding for specific student groups: nearly every state and DC provides additional funds for students with disabilities; 48 states plus DC provide EL funding and 44 states plus DC provide low-income student funding in some form. Per-student supplemental amounts vary widely across states (from under $200 to more than $7,000 in ECS's survey). He said states differ in how they identify eligible students (direct certification vs. free/reduced-price meal counts) and in whether they distribute aid through weights or categorical grants.

On legislative trends, Duncombe cited examples: New Mexico's optional "K plus" extra-instruction incentive; Nebraska's reimbursement increase for special education and a state cost estimated at roughly $300 million for that change; and Utah's proposal to reallocate savings from declining enrollment to increase the base per-pupil amount (pending a constitutional amendment). When asked by Sen. Hamlin for dollar amounts corresponding to the percentage funding shares shown on slides, Duncombe agreed to supply dollar conversions and a state-specific profile to committee staff after the hearing.

Committee members questioned the equity and effectiveness of performance-based incentives, the risk that outcome funds benefit higher-wealth districts, and whether funding changes lead to consolidation; Duncombe said states have used hold-harmless provisions and local engagement in transitions and offered to provide memos and state examples on those points.

ECS offered to provide the committee printed state profiles and follow-up materials and will supply the requested dollar-breakdowns and example analyses.